Hit Nt rely 
nay 


Pak Re 
Fy ys Py Bayete lee Bel oe { 
Subst uihy bs Ziv the be 
cee 


i acievirrion yatctatal 
fealty 0% bade nass Ae dri Ald ooh 
Aiphs ul aes 


paste 
f 


path a Mak td § 


Lore eo 


ee De Bee er) rad 


2 ts Hh hak 


Sai id gah Ah 
photon 


wy 


weet 


ad My 
‘A Peatig allt Tut 
ghar rh Wee gaye: 


Be Aad Mn, 
nae 


ae 


ri 
Da 1 
eis 


weet ay we 


Bn 


he nee il 
ie 


DP d AIG AVE RD IPM 5 Piro « ett 


bs 2 
44 ch ce Pet te ae eu pe ne 7 nies a 


ay 


moeika Fae 
fib ered Aid Praca 
Hee al whee ¢ Wade hee 


uti 


ine bem Gite mas 


: sk a ah, fn 
rath Fpl ah AP 
at 


igh sky 


9 fiohy bt inn 


ty: ty if } Pkt rls Sih 
tania ate (Bh Ss 
fast phic Ana 2 Fi 


+ vite ia EI ES 
hate 9 


Fess 


¥ 


1 a 
re tenth ee 
tae Messiah 
yh Scar aren Se if 


Pyihgt pale 4 " al 4 tb Bt, 


Latte 

Use ie hie ety! hye d paps at hh ti 
AE OA NBD DE HCP oe, j 1 

hay ‘ 


ths mtg 
agen 


fay 


os 
POW wae) My : ) Cy cas 


yt na 


‘ ot te aie heh gee nity ba 
iy: i 3a baidgs pda dads tt 
hinds ded vba Si dg z 


By 

ips ghia ais 

Hl MEA a 
il ue 


ay ane iy Py lah dip tyfinls, 


Bibel, tae 


ae oy iia ia sours io vas, 
Sy, 


eet eH 
4acv op 


Pig sone 


ar had y 
A phy 


S 


igen tieh fe at ere OLE’ ipa 
My Pha dade pos b 


TINEA Ene y 
a : pees ohne 
ree bd cake f Pa liclybieuny 
Andead poe ps VaR, try brea iy basity BAP ney 
mya Ba a we 73 tae 
ibys hy Paina 


‘ 
vee aiyrss gis r 


tere 


‘ 
ry Het ony tyely 


re: pets, ‘ iy a yeiapinty " 


unt ele y 


vty 
whats Neath VF 
a) 


i 

ae uN ats each 
hay PRS YM 
pasa pea 


ah Nore! 


Mae tae ashe tN 


Dahan ah WW PY EWS AF. c ‘ Chae 1% 
Caney ¥ a Bp tat” y ' +n. Neh 


\ 
Mahdi 


War ae eat 


Pray Hy Pete he 
Mung rreeelp 


Ba 4 we dAwehery 
Se bas hearty 4 
tsb SA EN 


‘ 
alah rit 
Sehint 


au 
get bth 


fi 

CE i ih 5 
van ss 
ure 
1 yen 


! i a chiens (lyons 
bag tent vhs A Ye ey 
etn Ree edie! 
at iets 


oS 


5, 
Bat 
yes 
Kate! thy 
sh 


Hides! 
NWT re shy 


each ye ‘sh 


Paty 


ote Ge pgs it Veitiy : 


t 
tila ye UPA 
emits Ore its ams “v4 nf jth an 

’ ope a ay HAN YY 

ye REN ne 
Da ai ine if 
aN - Nas sAH 


eum 
vey Le My 
ey sii ve 
SES 1s 


Dw ngagt ey 


‘ tien ‘\ 


os Tubs ates 
1m may watysqehycwyr P 
spate Hees Aaa 
Peaklads bat Rareak 
SUN ns % fas 


an a 


ear ® 
Dy aeeuasey UP 2 RN 

MORAY 

Spe litt foie hacdsat i hy My 

Saat pari a | Sane ; gk pew Vets 
ips A 
ARORA TM Sy, 

Rear s Vet Pei 


aii arta 
‘y Pearle tee 


feck Mace taely 
x He “4h 


Jee vies F 


PRAY y ane ete ary had Lae KAAS AYE 
WINER Dery Mon fhe way Se eV ye ee CRW artes 


eye Ava LORY We 
at aah 


hy tglhon 


ratrt aty os 


platy hy pee bit ade 


liye it 


o A 
Mae. 
o 


3 
al Cri casita) 
os i Hk istalaid 
i ee gy, 
dehy Aiton if tine 
rd bah aaa 
RR oda Py ly h 
. Ba Cale 
ba Pi dhs ist ff 
Heh nig Ota HH 
ih 
show 


oe ae 


* Ny Povsetan 
i thy tetas 
bib ¢ a 


a ai 
on we Mh i herby His ae ut 
aes A 4 
Re 
cite uae ue a bi a y ; 


uy 


ay ah 
a ve preven ee 
1! ailieag Wd eye 


at 


ihe bibs, sirals tihad 
wa ee : so to Shey, se est 


MP Abe ae 
i 


ao 
ee en 

6 7 
Meld “a 
iy iets ye 4, irae 5 
Moto ar 
en 


ey 


sine a 


Weary ” 


vt ie a hers ‘tg 


eM SY Bs 
te he et Apri UN 
eet he} apie ye Vi 
itt ahh se tt 
waver, iy 


S48 +7 
, : 


fyute Nor 
BO rat ah Ea | 
Hea SiMe rp 


= as 


yey 


aa 


wv ae ate 
q yee Rene, r 


% 
Wien 
Baie We ie 
pete Ty MP TA ICS 
SW nity seat Ne 
ange Geka tutately i te AR Je 
wate gi 


WP yee § LOR NS 
whey ZY OR ay Ree 


, ayy 
os wcbtbaly Co he 


7 
4 Yee tye 
ReTRORS mine Pas te 
Ty yoee eae De Be 
Nye le Bn pe ite ea AW ARR AER ye 
ma tT hah Tare oo pa ~ ye 
my, peter Tah 2 
7 Anh 


etain 
ih) egy 


et 
eulglae LRA 
APO MNe bre ROW NSAINE 


Dita tanoy 
ye sie Pe tw ey Rey tae 


ay Sha ty ee 


a 


WASP eyes 


\ . 
° at = | “S Pye AL att *y Syke 


SET! MU We TES hee 


ANE Fee ae ip fA 
Ny Vea Mens WeayUM ig 


iwtoote ere y Vat he 
Sr ee ae 


iy ee sees 
a el 











Wve 
L ri 
) 
Poy 
aoe 
yes 


OPE che le ae ae Pein! 
Oe ROT RI 
AP: : ‘ F ’ 1a ' ; 
y aif es 
yp % : é. ; 
, 1) rity We vs r i mM) 
, . fe " rvs my \ 
*) | y ; air is " 
vip ‘ a eae 
* ya 
th ‘ ea 
me 





UNIVERSITY OF 
ILLINOIS LIBRARY | 
AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 
BOOKSTACKS 


The person charging this material is re- 
sponsible for its return to the library from 
which it was. withdrawn on or before the 
Latest Date stamped below. 

Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons 
for disciplinary action and may result in dismissal from 


the University. 
To renew call Telephone Center, 333-8400 


UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 





L161—O-1096 





Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2022 with funding from 
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 


https://archive.org/details/freedomofseasorr00g rot_0 





HVGONIS GROTII 


MARE LIBERVM 


SIVE 
DE IVRE QVOD BATAVIS 
COMPETIT 
AD INDICANA COMMERCIA, 


DISSERTATIO 


1608 


abt ‘ 
ith 
‘ee 
+ lake 
H BJ 


ee 


: t r ji 
0 
hee 
P He r 


! 





Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 
DIVISION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 


UNVERSITY op LINO Line, Me 
THE FREEDOM OF THE SEA® ®° wi 


OR 


THE RIGHT WHICH BELONGS TO THE DUTCH 
TO TAKE PART IN THE EAST INDIAN TRADE 


A DISSERTATION BY 
HUGO GROTIUS 


TRANSLATED WITH A REVISION OF THE LATIN TEXT OF 1633 
BY 


RALPH VAN DEMAN MAGOFFIN, Pu.D. 


Associate Professor of Greek and Roman History 
The Johns Hopkins University 


EDITED WITH AN INTRODUCTORY NOTE 
BY 


JAMES BROWN SCOTT 
DIRECTOR 


NEW YORK 
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 
AMERICAN BRANCH: $5 West 82ND STREET 


LONDON, TORONTO, MELBOURNE, AND BOMBAY 
HUMPHREY MILFORD 


1916 






BBS acai eN alt | EN O00) COP MREG ETI 4016 1, 
CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATI 
beats VANE elit) AT ABEINGTON /D acne ie 


Udo obi ity’ 
Aer 


ON. 





1 1 ey 






vay 





\ 4 
I 
{ ‘ 
‘ y) 
i j 
Vu 
1% i v 
1 } 
Ay . i 
i 
t ‘ 
| j . 
r4 
i ’ Pint 
4 a ' 
, 
i 
1 ay i 
\ 
) « '¥ ‘ i) pie 
i H 
’ : 
) 
: 
; 
{ Vy z 
j A , 
r ‘ = 
‘ ri f 
f i | 
Maite ry tht) fig ! \ ; 
‘ ¢ ; i " 
: ’, { ' t 
{ ' \ { / t 
y 1% 4 } j if) Ry, v ; 
‘ j pee, i i bt 
4 { | ? b ‘ 4 ; 
i { \ \ I 
nal i i j | ae | hed 
} ’ . ' ; 5 
3 PAP Pb \ 
‘ ] way, H ! { t «ht iy 





















PRESB 






4 
4 





AT 


ars 


measure making the “freedom of the seas. 


INTRODUCTORY NOTE 


Since the month of August, 1914, the expression “ Free- 
dom of the Seas” has been on the lips alike of belligerent 
and neutral, and it seems as advisable as it is timely to 
issue—for the first time in English—the famous Latin 
tractate of Grotius proclaiming, explaining, and in no small 

The title of the little book, first published, anonymously, 
in November, 1608, explains the reason for its composition: 
“The Freedom of the Seas, or the Right which belongs to 
the Dutch to take part in the East Indian trade.” It was 
an open secret that it was written by the young Dutch 
scholar and lawyer, Hugo Grotius. It was a secret and 
remained a secret until 1868 that the Mare Liberwm was 
none other than Chapter XII of the treatise De Jure 
Praedae, written by Grotius in the winter of 1604-5, which 
first came to light in 1864 and was given to the world four 
years later.’ 

The publication of the treatise on the law of prize is 
important as showing that the author of the Mare Liberum 


-was already an accomplished international lawyer, and it 


*For the freedom of the seas and the relation of Grotius to the doctrine, 
see Ernest Nys’s Les Origines du Droit International (1894), pp. 379-387, and 
the same author’s Etudes de Droit International et de Droit Politique, 2¢ série 
(1901), Une Bataille de Livres, pp. 260-272. For an account in English see 
Walker’s History of the Law of Nations, Vol. I (1899), pp. 278-283. 

For an interesting sketch of the illustrious author of the Mare Liberum, see 
Motley’s The Life and Death of John of Barneveld, Vol. II, Chap. XXII; 
for an analysis of Grotius’ views on the law of nations, see Hallam’s Intro- 
duction to the Literature of Europe (4th edition), Vol. II, Part III, Chap. 
IV, Sec. III; for an account of Grotius as a humanist, see Sandys’ History 
of Classical Scholarship (1908), Vol. II, pp. 315-319. 

* Hugonis Grotii De Jure Praedae, edited, with an introduction, by H. G. 
Hamaker, and published at The Hague in 1868 by Martinus Nijhoff. 


vl INTRODUCTORY NOTE 


proves beyond peradventure that the masterpiece of 1625 
on the “ Law of War and Peace” was not a hurried pro- 
duction, but the culmination of study and reflection ex- 
tending over twenty years and more. More important 
still is the fact that neither the law of prize nor the Mare 
Liberum was a philosophic exercise, for it appears that 
Grotius had been retained by the Dutch East India Com- 
pany to justify the capture by one of its ships of a Portu- 
guese galleon in the straits of Malacca in the year 1602; 
that the treatise on the law of prize, of which the Mare 
Liberum is a chapter, was in the nature of a brief; and that 
the first systematic treatise on the law of nations—The Law 
of War and Peace—was not merely a philosophical disquisi- 
tion, but that it was the direct outgrowth of an actual case 
and of professional employment.’ 


1In support of the view that Grotius appeared as counsel in cases arising 
out of captures made by vessels in the service of the Dutch East India Company, 
and that the treatise, De Jure Praedae, is a legal brief, see R. Fruin’s Hen 
Onuitgegeven Werk van Hugo De Groot in Verspreide Geschriften, Vol. III, 
pp. 367-445. The following passages are quoted from this remarkable essay: 

“While busy with the sale of the goods [of the captured merchantman 
Catherine, which had been unloaded in the Amsterdam arsenal], the process of 
adjudicating the booty before the admiralty court was conducted in the usual 
forms. Claimants: Advocate General of Holland, the Board of eight Aldermen, 
and Admiral Heemskerck; ...on Thursday, September 9, 1604, final sentence 
was rendered, and ‘the merchantman together with the goods taken from it 
were declared forfeited and confiscated’” (pp. 389-390). 

“Hulsius in some measure replaces what the fire at the Marine Arsenal 
has robbed us of; among other records he has preserved for us in his Achte 
Schiffart the sentence pronounced in this matter by the admiralty, and of which 
we have knowledge from no other sources. From it we learn the grounds upon 
which the claimants demanded the adjudication of the booty. These grounds 
are the same twelve which De Groot discusses in his book. . . . This concordance 
can be explained on the ground that De Groot must have had acquaintance with 
the sentence; but he was not a man merely to repeat what others had before him 
witnessed. [I should be inclined to feel that in the process he had served as 
counsel for the Company, and that he himself was one of the authors of the 
written claim upon which the sentence was based. It would not then be sur- 
prising if in his book he should develop at greater length and throw light upon 
what had already been set forth in the claim” (pp. 390-391). 

“T cannot state definitely that Hugo De Groot was persuaded by the Directors 
to write such an argument; I have been unable to discover any evidence to 


INTRODUCTORY NOTE vil 


The Spaniards, as is well known, then claimed the 
Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, and Portugal 
claimed, in like manner, the Atlantic south of Morocco and 
the Indian Ocean, and both nations, at this time under a 
common sovereign, claimed and sought to exercise the right 
of excluding all foreigners from navigating or entering 
these waters. he Dutch, then at war with Spain, although 
not technically at war with Portugal, established themselves 
in 1598 in the island of Mauritius. Shortly thereafter they 
made settlements in Java and in the Moluccas. In 1602 
the Dutch East India Company was formed, and, as it at- 
tempted to trade with the East Indies, its vessels came into 
competition with those of the Portuguese engaged in the 
‘Eastern trade, which sought to exclude them from the 
Indian waters. One Heemskerck, a captain in the employ 
of the Company, took a large Portuguese galleon in the 
Straits of Malacca. To trade with the East Indies was one 
thing, to capture Portuguese vessels was quite another thing. 
Therefore, some members of the Company refused their 
parts of the prize; others sold their shares in the company, 
and still others thought of establishing a new company in 
France, under the protection of King Henry IV, which 
should trade in peace and abstain from all warlike action. 
The matter was therefore one of no little importance, and 
it appears that Grotius was consulted and wrote his treatise 
on the law of prize, which is in the nature of a brief and 


is, at any rate, a lawyer’s argument.’ 


that end. That he was in close relations with the Company, he himself says in 
a letter of later date, addressed to his brother. Nor can there be any doubt 
that in writing his work he made use of the archives of the United Company and 
of its predecessor. If the supposition, which I have elsewhere ventured to make 
is correct, that is to say, that in the conduct of the case he appeared as advocate 
for the Company, it would then appear most probable that, after consultation 
with the directors, he set about writing his book, which was to be a second plea 
in their behalf” (p. 403). 

+ For the account which Grotius himself gives of the incident, see his Annales 
et Historiae de Rebus Belgicis ab Obitu Philippi Regis usque ad Inducias Anni 
1609, written in 1612, but first published in 1658, Book 1, p. 429. 


vill INTRODUCTORY NOTE 


In 1608 Spain and Holland began negotiations which, 
on April 9, 1609, resulted in the truce of Antwerp for the 
period of 12 years, and, in the course of the negotiations, 
Spain tried to secure from the United Provinces a renuncia- 
tion of their right to trade in the East and West Indies. 
The Dutch East India Company thereupon, it would appear, 
requested Grotius to publish that part of his brief dealing 
with the freedom of the seas. ‘This was done under the 
title of Mare Liberwm, with such changes as were necessary 
to enable it to stand alone. 

It will be observed that the Mare Liberum was written 
to refute the unjustified claims of Spain and Portugal to 
the high seas and to exclude foreigners therefrom. ‘The 
claims of England, less extensive but not less unjustifiable, 
were not mentioned, and yet, if the arguments of Grotius 
were sound, the English claims to the high seas to the south 
and east of England, as well as to undefined regions to 
the north and west, would likewise fall to the ground. 
Therefore the distinguished English lawyer, scholar, and 
publicist, John Selden by name, bestirred himself in behalf 
of his country and wrote his Mare Clausum in 1617 or 1618, 
although it was not published until 1635, to refute the little 
tractate, Mare Liberum.’ In the dedication to King Charles I, 

For a fuller account of the circumstances under which the treatise on the 
law of prize was written, see Hamaker’s edition of the De Jure Praedae, pp. 
vii-vili. The distinguished historian and scholar, Robert J. Fruin, after an 
exhaustive examination of the evidence, informed Hamaker that Grotius was 
retained by the Company to prepare the commentary on the law of prize. The 
English translation of Hamaker’s exact statement reads as follows: “Fruin is 


of the opinion that he [Grotius] undertook this work at the instance of the 
Company, and that he appeared in it as their spokesman.” 

For an analysis of the commentary De Jure Praedae and the circumstances 
under which it was written, see Jules Basdevant’s study on Grotius, pp. 131- 
137, 155-179, in Pillet’s Les Fondateurs du Droit International (1904). 

1 Selden’s Mare Clausuwm was not the only defense of England, nor was the 
Mare Liberum the only lance which Grotius broke for the freedom of the seas. 
In 1613 William Welwod, professor of Civil Law at the University of Aberdeen, 
published a little book entitled An Abridgement of all the Sea-Lawes, in which 
he maintained the English side of the question, of which Title XXVII, pp. 61- 


INTRODUCTORY NOTE ix 


Selden said: “There are among foreign writers, who 
rashly attribute your Majesty’s more southern and eastern 
sea to their princes. Nor are there a few, who following 
chiefly some of the ancient Caesarian lawyers, endeavor to 
affirm, or beyond reason too easily admit, that all seas are 
common to the universality of mankind.” ‘The thesis of 
Selden was twofold: first, “that the sea, by the law of 
nature or nations, is not common to all men, but capable 
of private dominior. or property as well as the land”; 
second, “that the King of Great Britain is lord of the sea 
flowing about, as an inseparable and perpetual appendant 
of the British Empire.” 

In this battle of books, to use the happy expression of 
Professor Nys, the Dutch Scholar has had the better of his 
English antagonist. If it cannot be said that Grotius wears 
his learning “lightly like a flower ”, the treatise of Selden 
is, in comparison, over-freighted with it; the Mare Liberum 
is still an open book, the Mare Clausum is indeed a closed 
one, and as flotsam or jetsam on troubled waters, Chapter 
XII of the Law of Prize rides the waves, whereas its rival, 
heavy and water-logged, has gone under, 

In the leading case of The Louis (2 Dodson 210), de- 
cided in 1817, some two hundred years after Selden’s book 
was written, Sir William Scott, later Lord Stowell and one 
of Selden’s most distinguished countrymen, said, in reject- 
ing the claim of his country to the exercise of jurisdiction 
beyond a marine league from the British shore: 


72, deals with the community and property of the seas. Two years later Welwod 
published a second work, this time in Latin, entitled De Dominio Maris Juribusque 
ad Dominium praecipue Spectantibus Assertia Brevis ac Methodica. 

Grotius prepared, but did not publish, a reply to Welwod’s first attack, 
entitled Defensio Capitis Quinti Maris Liberi Oppugnati a Gulielmo Welwodo 
Juris Civilis Professore, Capite XXVII ejus Libri Scripti Anglica Sermone cui 
Titulum Fecit Compendium Legum Maritimarum. It was discovered at the 
same time as the commentary De Jure Praedae and was published in 1872 in 
Muller’s Mare Clausum, Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis der rivaliteit van Engeland 
en Nederland in de zeventiende eeuw. 


x INTRODUCTORY NOTE 


I have to observe, that two principles of public law 
are generally recognized as fundamental. 

One is the perfect equality and entire independence 
of all distinct states. Relative magnitude creates no 
distinction of right; relative imbecility, whether per- 
manent or casual, gives no additional right to the more 
powerful neighbor; and any advantage seized upon 
that ground is mere usurpation. This is the great 
foundation of public law, which it mainly concerns the 
peace of mankind, both in their politic and private 
capacities, to preserve inviolate. 

The second is, that all nations being equal, all 
have an equal right to the uninterrupted use of the 
unappropriated parts of the ocean for their navigation. 
In places where no local authority exists, where the 
subjects of all states meet upon a footing of entire 
equality and independence, no one state, or any of its 
subjects, has a right to assume or exercise authority 
over the subjects of another. 


In closing the preface to the Mare Clausuwm, Selden used 
language, which the undersigned quotes, albeit in an inverse 
sense, as a fit ending to this subject: 

‘ Other passages there are everywhere of the same kind. 
But I enlarge myself too much in a thing so manifest. 
Therefore I forbear to light a candle to the sun. Farewell 
reader.” 

JAMES Brown Scott, 
Director of the Division. of 
International Law. 
WASHINGTON, D. C., 
February 28, 1916. 





TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE 


The Latin Teat 


The Latin Text is based upon the Elzevir edition of 
1633, the modifications being only such as to bring the 
Latin into conformity with the present day Teubner and 
Oxford texts. 

References in the notes to classic authors are given in 
unabbreviated form, following in other respects the The- 
saurus Linguae Latinae Index. Citations to the Civil Law 
are given in the modern notation, which is followed, in 
parentheses, by the older method of reference. The text 
used is that of Mommsen, Krueger, Schoell et Kroll. The 
Canon Law is cited from the Friedberg edition of 1879-81. 
The abbreviations used are explained below. 


The Translation 


The translator wishes to make due acknowledgment for 
the passages from classic writers quoted from standard 
translations, to which references are also made in the notes. 
He has also consulted the French translation of Grotius by 
A. Guichon de Grandpont (1845). But his chief acknowl- 
edgment is to his colleague and friend, Professor Kirby 
Flower Smith of The Johns Hopkins University, to whom 
he read the translation, and who gave him the benefit of his 
knowledge of Latin and his taste in English, in a number 
of troublesome passages. Many niceties of the translation 
belong to Professor Smith, but mistakes in interpretation 
belong to the translator alone. 


Acknowledgment and thanks are also due to Professor 
xi 


xii PREFACE - 


Westel Woodbury Willoughby of Johns Hopkins, who 
has been so good as to read the translation through in 
galley proof and give the translator the benefit of his 
technical knowledge of law; to his Johns Hopkins col- 
league, Professor Wilfred P. Mustard, who has helped 
him out of a number of difficulties; to Bishop Shahan, 
Rector of the Catholic University of America, who has 
given of his time to help expand several of Grotius’ 
abbreviated references to theological or canonical authors; 
to John Curlett Martin, Johns Hopkins Fellow in Greek, 
who has been of great assistance in the verification of refer- 
ences; and to the men of the Quinn and Boden Company 
for their courteous assistance while the book was going 
through the press. 


Last of Abbreviations 


Auth., Authenticum. 

Clem., Constitutiones Clementis Papae Quinti. 

Dist., Distinctio Decreti Gratiani. 

Extravag., Constitutiones XX D. Ioannis Papae XXII. 

Lib. VI, Liber sextus Decretalium D. Bonifacii Papae 
VIII. 

Other abbreviations should offer no difficulties. 


Notes of Explanation 


The words and phrases in the Latin text in capital fol- 
low the type of the Elzevir text. 

In order that both text and translation may be complete 
in themselves, the notes below the translation follow the 
notes of the text in shortened or expanded form, or in du- 
plicate, as the occasion would seem to demand. ‘The notes in 
Grotius’ Latin text are in a most abbreviated form, and the 
references are seldom specific. They have been expanded 
without further explanation. 

[ ] in the translation, text, or notes, inclose additions 
made by the translator. 








CAPITA DISSERTATIONIS 
HVGONIS GROTII DE MARE LIBERO 


PAGINA 


Ad Principes populosque liberos orbis Chris- 


tiani . : 1 
CAPVT : ; 

I. Iure gentium quibusvis ad quosvis liberam esse 
navigationem . . . . |). Se 

II. Lusitanos nullum habere ius domini in eos 

Indos ad quos Batavi navigant titulo inven- 
tionis 3 ; : : : : } are) bs § 

III. Lwusitanos in Indos non habere ius dominii titulo 
donationis Pontificiae . : : : ee 05) 

IV. Lusitanos in Indos non habere ius dominii titulo 
belli . A ‘ ; : A : 4 . 18 


V. Mare ad Indos aut ius eo navigandi non esse 
proprium Lusitanorum titulo occupationis . 22 


VI. Mare aut ius navigandi proprium non esse . 
Lusitanorum titulo donationis Pontificiae . 45 


VII. Mare aut ius navigandi proprium non esse 
Lusitanorum titulo praescriptionis aut con- 


suetudinis A : é 5 : ; . ae 
xiv 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


Introductory Note 
Translator’s Preface 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 


To the rulers and to the free and independent 
nations of Christendom . | 


CHAPTER 
I. By the Law of Nations navigation is free to all 
persons whatsoever OAR BI OW 


II. The Portuguese have no right by title of dis- 
covery to sovereignty over the Kast Indies 
to which the Dutch make voyages 


III. The Portuguese have no right of sovereignty 
over the East Indies by virtue of title based 
on the Papal Donation . So Ni 


IV. The Portuguese have no right of sovereignty 
over the Kast Indies by title of war 


V. Neither the Indian Ocean nor the right of navi- 


gation thereon belongs to the Sen ie | 


title of occupation . 


VI. Neither the Sea nor the right of navigation 
thereon belongs to the Portuguese by virtue 
of title based on the Papal Donation . 


VII. Neither the Sea nor the right of navigation 
thereon belongs to the Portuguese by title 


of prescription or custom 
xiv 


PAGE 


11 


18 


22 


A5 


47 


XV 


CAPVT 


VIIl. 


IX. 


XI. 


XIT. 


XIII. 


CAPITA DISSERTATIONIS 
Iure gentium inter quosvis liberam esse mer- 


caturam 


Mercaturam cum Indis propriam non esse 
Lusitanorum titulo occupationis . 


Mercaturam cum Indis propriam non esse 
Lusitanorum titulo donationis Pontificiae . 


Merecaturam cum Indis non esse Lusitanorum 
propriam iure praescriptionis aut consuetu- 
dinis 


Nulla aequitate niti Lusitanos in prohibendo 
commercio 


Batavis ius commercii Indicani, qua pace, qua 
indutiis, qua bello retinendum 


Regis Hispaniarum litterae 


PAGINA 


61 


65 


66 


67 


69 


72 


cf 


CHAPTER 


VIII. 


IX. 


X. 


XI. 


XII. 


XITTI. 


CONTENTS 


By the Law of Nations trade is free to all per- 
sons whatsoever OE Clie 


Trade with the East Indies does not belong to 
the Portuguese by title of occupation . 


Trade with the East Indies does not belong 
to the Portuguese by virtue of title based 
on the Papal Donation . 


Trade with the East Indies does not belong to 
the Portuguese by title of prescription or 
custom : : : 


The Portuguese prohibition of trade has no 
foundation in equity 


The Dutch must maintain their right of trade 
with the East Indies e peace, . ote 
or by war . 


Appendix: Two letters of pet III, aoe of 
Spain oe 


66 


67 


69 


17 


AD 
PRINCIPES 
POPVLOSQVE LIBEROS 
ORBIS CHRISTIANI 


Error est non minus vetus quam pestilens, quo multi 
mortales, ii autem maxime qui plurimum vi atque opibus 
valent, persuadent sibi, aut, quod verius puto, persuadere 
conantur, iustum atque iniustum non suapte natura, sed 
hominum inani quadam opinione atque consuetudine dis- 
tingui. Itaque illi et leges et aequitatis speciem in hoc in- 
venta existimant, ut eorum qui in parendi condicione nati 
sunt dissensiones atque tumultus coerceantur; ipsis vero qui 
in summa fortuna sunt collocati, ius omne aiunt ex volun- 
tate, voluntatem ex utilitate metiendam. Hance autem sen- 
tentiam absurdam plane atque naturae contrariam auc- 
toritatis sibi nonnihil conciliasse haud adeo mirum est, cum 
ad morbum communem humani generis, quo sicut vitia ita 
vitiorum patrocinia sectamur, accesserint adulantium artes 
quibus omnis potestas obnoxia est. | 

Sed contra exstiterunt nullo non saeculo viri liberi, 
sapientes, religiosi, qui falsam hance persuasionem animis 
simplicium evellerent ceteros autem eius defensores impu- 
dentiae convincerent. Deum quippe esse monstrabant con- 
ditorem rectoremque universi, imprimis autem humanae 
naturae parentem, quam ideo, non uti cetera animantia, in 
species diversas, variaque discrimina segregasset, sed unius 


esse generis, una etiam appellatione voluisset contineri, 
1 


TO THE RULERS AND TO THE FREE 
AND INDEPENDENT NATIONS 
OF CHRISTENDOM 


The delusion is as old as it is detestable with which many 
men, especially those who by their wealth and power exercise 
the greatest influence, persuade themselves, or as I rather 
believe, try to persuade themselves, that justice and injustice 
are distinguished the one from the other not by their own 
nature, but in some fashion merely by the opinion and the 
custom of mankind. ‘Those men therefore think that both 
the laws and the semblance of equity were devised for the 
sole purpose of repressing the dissensions and rebellions of 
those persons born in a subordinate position, affirming mean- 
while that they themselves, being placed in a high position, — 
ought to dispense all justice in accordance with their own 
good pleasure, and that their pleasure ought to be bounded 
only by their own view of what is expedient. ‘This opinion, 
absurd and unnatural as it clearly is, has gained considerable 
currency; but this should by no means occasion surprise, 
inasmuch as there has to be taken into consideration not only 
the common frailty of the human race by which we pursue 
not only vices and their purveyors, but also the arts of flat- 
terers, to whom power is always exposed. 

But, on the other hand, there have stood forth in every 
age independent and wise and devout men able to root out 
this false doctrine from the minds of the simple, and to 
convict its advocates of shamelessness. For they showed 
that God was the founder and ruler of the universe, and 
especially that being the Father of all mankind, He had not 
separated human beings, as He had the rest of living things, 
into different species and various divisions, but had willed 


them to be of one race and to be known by one name; that 
1 


2 MARE LIBERVM 


dedisset insuper originem eandem, similem membrorum 
compagem, vultus inter se obversos, sermonem quoque et 
alia communicandi instrumenta, ut intelligerent omnes 
naturalem inter se societatem esse atque cognationem. Huic 
autem a se fundatae aut domui aut civitati summum illum 
principem patremque familias suas quasdam_scripsisse 
leges, non in aere aut tabulis, sed in sensibus animisque 
singulorum, ubi invitis etiam et aversantibus legendae 
occurrent his legibus summos pariter atque infimos teneri, 
in has non plus regibus licere, quam plebi adversus decreta 
decurionum, decurionibus contra praesidium edicta, prae- 
sidibus in regum ipsorum sanctiones. Quin illa ipsa popu- 
lorum atque urbium singularum iura ex illo fonte dimanare, 
inde sanctimoniam suam atque maiestatem accipere. 

Sicut autem in ipso homine alia sunt quae habet cum 
omnibus communia, alia quibus ab altero quisque distin- 
guitur, ita earum rerum quas in usum hominis produxisset 
natura alias eam manere communes, alias cuiusque indus- 
tria ac labore proprias fieri voluisse, de utrisque autem 
datas leges, ut communibus quidem sine detrimento omnium 
omnes uterentur, de ceteris autem quod cuique contigisset eo 
contentus abstineret alieno. 

Haec si homo nullus nescire potest nisi homo esse 
desierit, haec si gentes viderunt quibus ad verum omne 
caecutientibus sola naturae fax illuxit, quid vos sentire ac 
facere aequum est, principes populique Christiani? 


oes a me 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 2 


furthermore He had given them the same origin, the same 
structural organism, the ability to look each other in the 
face, language too, and other means of communication, in 
order that they all might recognize their natural social bond 
and kinship. They showed too that He is the supreme Lord 
and Father of this family; and that for the household or the 
state which He had thus founded, He had drawn up certain 
laws not graven on tablets of bronze or stone but written in 
the minds and on the hearts of every individual, where 
even the unwilling and the refractory must read them. 
That these laws were binding on great and small alike; that 
kings have no more power against them than have the com- 
mon people against the decrees of the magistrates, than have 
the magistrates against the edicts of the governors, than 
have the governors against the ordinances of the kings them- 
selves; nay more, that those very laws themselves of each 
and every nation and city flow from that Divine source, and 
from that source receive their sanctity and their majesty. 

Now, as there are some things which every man enjoys 
in common with all other men, and as there are other things 
which are distinctly his and belong to no one else, just so 
has nature willed that some of the things which she has 
created for the use of mankind remain common to all, and 
that others through the industry and labor of each man be- 
come his own. Laws moreover were given to cover both 
cases so that all men might use common property without 
prejudice to any one else, and in respect to other things so 
that each man being content. with what he himself owns 
might refrain from laying his hands on the property of 
others. 

Now since no man can be ignorant of these facts unless 
he ceases to be a man, and since races blind to all truth 
except what they receive from the light of nature, have rec- 
ognized their force, what, O Christian Kings and Nations, 
ought you to think, and what ought you to do? 


3 MARE LIBERVM 


Si quis durum putat ea a se exigi quae tam sancti 
nominis professio requirit, cuius minimum est ab iniuriis 
abstinere, certe quid sui sit offici scire quisque potest ex eo 
quod alteri praecipit. Nemo est vestrum qui non palam 
edicat rei quemque suae esse moderatorem et arbitrum: qui 
non fluminibus locisque publicis cives omnes uti ex aequo et 
promiscue iubeat, qui non commeandi commercandique 
libertatem omni ope defendat. 

Sine his si parva illa societas, quam rempublicam vo- 
camus, constare non posse iudicatur (et certe constare non 
potest) quamobrem non eadem illa ad sustinendam totius 
humani generis societatem atque concordiam erunt neces- 
saria? Si quis adversus haec vim faciat, merito indignamini, 
exempla etiam pro flagiti magnitudine statuitis, non alia de 
causa nisi quia ubi ista passim licent status imperi tran- 
quillus esse non potest. Quod si rex in regem, populus in 
populum inique et violente agat, id nonne ad perturbandam 
magnae illius civitatis quietem et ad summi custodis spectat 
iniuriam? Hoc interest, quod sicut magistratus minores de 
vulgo iudicant, vos de magistratibus, ita omnium aliorum 
delicta cognoscenda vobis et punienda mandavit rex universi, 
vestra excepit sibi. Is autem quamquam supremam 
animadversionem sibi reservat, tardam, occultam, inevita- 
bilem, nihilominus duos a se iudices delegat qui rebus 
humanis intersint, quos nocentium felicissimus non effugit, 
conscientiam cuique suam, et famam sive existimationem 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 3 


If any one thinks it hard that those things are demanded 
of him which the profession of a religion so sacred requires, 
the very least obligation of which is to refrain from injustice, 
~ certainly every one can know what his own duty is from the 
very demands he makes of others. There is not one of you 
who does not openly proclaim that every man is entitled to 
manage and dispose of his own property; there is not one 
of you who does not insist that all citizens have equal and 
indiscriminate right to use rivers and public places; not one 
of you who does not defend with all his might the freedom 
of travel and of trade. 

If it be thought that the small society which we call a 
state cannot exist without the application of these principles 
(and certainly it cannot), why will not those same principles 
be necessary to uphold the social structure of the whole 
human race and to maintain the harmony thereof? If any 
one rebels against these principles of law and order you are 
justly indignant, and you even decree punishments in pro- 
portion to the magnitude of the offense, for no other reason 
than that a government cannot be tranquil where trespasses 
of that sort are allowed. If king act unjustly and violently 
against king, and nation against nation, such action involves 
a disturbance of the peace of that universal state, and con- 
stitutes a trespass against the supreme Ruler, does it not? 
There is however this difference: just as the lesser magis- 
trates judge the common people, and as you judge the magis- 
trates, so the King of the universe has laid upon you the 
command to take cognizance of the trespasses of all other 
men, and to punish them; but He has reserved for Himself 
the punishment of your own trespasses. But although He 
reserves to himself the final punishment, slow and unseen 
but none the less inevitable, yet He appoints to intervene in 
human affairs two judges whom the luckiest of sinners does 
not escape, namely, Conscience, or the innate estimation of 
oneself, and Public Opinion, or the estimation of others. 


4 MARE LIBERVM 


alienam. Haec tribunalia illis patent quibus alia praeclusa 
sunt; ad haec infirmi provocant; in his vincuntur qui vincunt 
viribus, qui licentiae modum non statuunt, qui vili putant 
constare quod emitur humano sanguine, qui iniurias iniuriis 
defendunt, quorum manifesta facinora necesse est et con- 
sentiente bonorum iudicio damnari, et sui ipsorum animi 
sententia non absolvi. 

Ad utrumque hoc forum nos quoque novam causam 
afferimus; non hercule de stillicidiis aut tigno iniuncto, 
quales esse privatorum solent, ac ne ex eo quidem genere 
quod frequens est inter populos, de agri iure in confinio 
haerentis, de amnis aut insulae possessione; sed de omni 
prope oceano, de iure navigandi, de libertate commerciorum. 
Inter nos et Hispanos haec controversa sunt: Sitne immen- 
sum et vastum mare regni unius nec maximi accessio; popu- 
lone cuiquam ius sit volentes populos prohibere ne vendant, 
ne permutent, ne denique commeent inter sese; potueritne 
quisquam quod suum numquam fuit elargiri, aut invenire 
quod iam erat alienum; an ius aliquod tribuat manifesta 
longi temporis iniuria. 

In hac disceptatione ipsis qui inter Hispanos praecipui 
sunt divini atque humani iuris magistri calculum porrigimus, 
ipsius denique Hispaniae proprias leges imploramus. Id si 
nihil iuvat, et eos quos ratio certa convincit cupiditas vetat 
desistere, vestram principes maiestatem, vestram fidem 
quotquot estis ubique gentes appellamus. 

Non perplexam, non intricatam movemus quaesHioneay 
Non de ambiguis in religione capitibus, quae plurimum 


—— 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS A 


These two tribunals are open to those who are debarred from 
all others; to these the powerless appeal; in them are de- 
feated those who are wont to win by might, those who put 
no bounds to their presumption, those who consider cheap 
anything bought at the price of human blood, those who de- 
fend injustice by injustice, men whose wickedness is so mani- 
fest that they must needs be condemned by the unanimous 
judgment of the good, and cannot be cleared before the bar 
of their own souls. 

To this double tribunal we bring a new case. It is in very 
truth no petty case such as private citizens are wont to bring 
against their neighbors about dripping eaves or party walls; 
nor is it a case such as nations frequently bring against one 
another about boundary lines or the possession of a river or 
an island. No! It is a case which concerns practically the 
entire expanse of the high seas, the right of navigation, the 
freedom of trade!! Between us and the Spaniards the fol- 
lowing points are in dispute: Can the vast, the boundless 
sea be the appanage of one kingdom alone, and it not the 
greatest? Can any one nation have the right to prevent 
other nations which so desire, from selling to one another, 
from bartering with one another, actually from communicat- 
ing with one another? Can any nation give away what it 
never owned, or discover what already belonged to some one 
else? Does a manifest injustice of long standing create a 
specific right? 

In this controversy we appeal to those jurists among the 
Spanish themselves who are especially skilled both in divine 
and human law; we actually invoke the very laws of Spain 
itself. If that is of no avail, and those whom reason clearly 
convicts of wrong are induced by greed to maintain that 
stand, we invoke your majesty, ye Princes, your good faith, 
ye Peoples, whoever and wherever ye may be. 

It is not an involved, it is not an intricate question that 
I am raising. It is not a question of ambiguous points of 


5 MARE LIBERVM 


habere videntur obscuritatis, quae tantis tam diu animis 
decertata, apud sapientes hoc fere certum reliquerunt, nus- 
quam minus inveniri veritatem quam ubi cogitur assensus. 
Non de statu nostrae reipublicae, et libertate armis haud 
parta sed vindicata; de qua recte statuere 11 demum possunt 
qui iura patria Belgarum, mores avitos, et institutum non 
in leges regnum, sed ex legibus principatum accurate cog- 
noverint, in qua tamen quaestione aequis iudicibus extremae 
servitutis depulsa necessitas, subtilius inquirentibus decreti * 
tot nationum publica auctoritas, infensis etiam et malevolis 
adversariorum confessio nihil dubitandum reliquit. 

Sed quod hie proponimus nihil cum istis commune habet, 
nullius indiget anxiae disquisitionis, non ex divini codicis 
pendet explicatione, cuius multa multi non capiunt, non 
ex unius populi scitis quae ceteri merito ignorant. 

Lex illa e cuius praescripto iudicandum est, inventu est 
non difficilis, utpote eadem apud omnes; et facilis intellectu, 
utpote nata cum singulis, singulorum mentibus insita. Ius 
autem quod petimus tale est quod nec rex subditis negare 
debeat, neque Christianus non Christianis. A natura enim 
oritur, quae ex aequo omnium parens est, in omnes munifica, 
culus imperium in eos extenditur qui gentibus imperant, et 
apud eos sanctissimum est qui in pietate plurimum pro- 
fecerunt, 

Cognoscite hane causam principes! cognoscite populi! si 
quid iniquum postulamus, scitis quae vestra et e vobis eorum 


qui viciniores nobis estis apud nos semper fuerit auctoritas! 


* [decreta (?); decreti is the reading of the 1633 and 1720 texts]. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 5 


theology which seem to be wrapped in the deepest obscurity, 
which have been debated already so long and with such heat, 
that wise men are almost convinced that truth is never so 
rarely found as when assent thereto is forced. It is not a 
question of the status of our government and of inde- 
pendence not won by arms but restored. On this point those 
ean reach a right decision who have an accurate knowledge 
of the ancestral laws and hereditary customs of the people 
of the Netherlands, and who have recognized that their state 
is not a kingdom illegally founded but is a government based 
upon law. In this matter, however, just judges no longer 
compelled to subordinate their convictions have been per- 
suaded; the public authority of many nations has entirely 
satisfied those who were seeking a precedent; and the admis- 
sions of our adversaries have left even the foolish and 
malevolent no room for doubt. 

But what I here submit has nothing in common with these 
matters. It calls for no troublesome investigation. It does 
not depend upon an interpretation of Holy Writ in which 
many people find many things they cannot understand, nor 
upon the decrees of any one nation of which the rest of the 
world very properly knows nothing. 

The law by which our case must be decided is not difficult 
to find, seeing that it is the same among all nations; and it 
is easy to understand, seeing that it is innate in every in- 
dividual and implanted in his mind. Moreover the law to 
which we appeal is one such as no king ought to deny to 
his subjects, and one no Christian ought to refuse to a 
non-Christian. For it is a law derived from nature, the 
common mother of us all, whose bounty falls on all, and 
whose sway extends over those who rule nations, and which 
is held most sacred by those who are most scrupulously just. 

Take cognizance of this cause, ye Princes, take cog- 
nizance of it, ye Nations! If we are making an unjust de- 
mand, you know what your authority and the authority of 


6 MARE LIBERVM 


Monete, parebimus. Quin si quid a nobis hac in re peccatum 
est, iram vestram, odium denique humani generis non 
deprecamur. Sin contra se res habet, quid vobis censendum, 
quid agendum sit, vestrae religioni et aequitati relinquimus. 

Olim inter populos humaniores summum nefas habebatur 
armis eos impetere qui res suas arbitris permitterent, contra 
qui tam aequam condicionem recusarent, ii non ut unius sed 
ut omnium hostes ope communi comprimebantur. Itaque 
eam in rem videmus icta foedera, iudices constitutos. Reges 
ipsi validaeque gentes nihil aeque gloriosum ac magnificum 
deputabant, quam aliorum coercere insolentiam, aliorum in- 
firmitatem atque innocentiam sublevare. Qui si mos 
hodieque obtineret, ut humani nihil a se alienum * homines 
arbitrarentur, profecto orbe non paulo pacatiore uteremur; 
refrigesceret enim multorum audacia, et qui iustitiam 
utilitatis causa nunc negligunt, iniustitiam damno suo 
dediscerent. 

Sed hoc ut in causa istac non frustra forte speramus, ita 
illud certo confidimus, bene rebus expensis existimaturos 
vos omnes imputari nobis non magis posse pacis moras, 
quam belli causas; ac proinde uti hactenus amici nobis fa- 
ventes atque benevoli fuistis, ita vos aut etiam magis in 
posterum fore, quo nihil optatius iis potest contingere qui 
primam partem felicitatis putant bene facere, alteram bene 
audire. 


*[Cf. Terence, Hautontimorumenos 77]. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 6 


those of you who are our nearer neighbors has always been 
so far as we are concerned. Caution us, we will obey. 
Verily, if we have done any wrong in this our cause, we will 
not deprecate your wrath, nor even the hatred of the human 
race. But if we are right, we leave to your sense of right- 
eousness and of fairness what you ought to think about this 
matter and what course of action you ought to pursue. 

In ancient times among the more civilized peoples it was 
held to be the greatest of all crimes to make war upon those 
who were willing to submit to arbitration the settlement of 
their difficulties; but against those who declined so fair an 
offer all others turned, and with their combined resources 
overwhelmed them, not as enemies of any one nation, but 
as enemies of them all alike. So for this very object we see 
that treaties are made and arbiters appointed. Kings them- 
selves and powerful nations used to think that nothing was 
so chivalrous or so noble as to coerce the insolent and to 
help the weak and innocent. 

If today the custom held of considering that everything 
pertaining to mankind pertained also to one’s self, we should 
surely live in a much more peaceable world. For the pre- 
sumptuousness of many would abate, and those who now 
neglect justice on the pretext of expediency would unlearn 
the lesson of injustice at their own expense. 

We have felt that perhaps we were not entertaining a 
foolish hope for our cause. At all events we are confident 
that you will all recognize after duly weighing the facts in 
the case that the delays to peace can no more be laid to our 
charge than can the causes of war; and as hitherto you have 
been indulgent, even favorably disposed to us, we feel sure 
that you will not only remain in this mind, but be even more 
friendly to us in the future. Nothing more to be desired 
than this can come to men who think that the first condi- 
tion of happiness is good deeds; the second, good repute. 


CAPVT I 


Iure gentium quibusvis ad quosvis 
liberam esse navigationem 


Propositum est nobis breviter ac dilucide demonstrare ius 
esse Batavis, hoc est, Ordinum Foederatorum Belgico-Ger- 
maniae subditis ad Indos, ita uti navigant navigare, cumque 
ipsis commercia colere. Fundamentum struemus hanc iuris 
gentium, quod primarium vocant regulam certissimam, cuius 
perspicua atque immutabilis est ratio; licere cuivis genti 
quamvis alteram adire, cumque ea negotiari. 

Deus hoc ipse per naturam loquitur, cum ea cuncta qui- 
bus vita indiget, omnibus locis suppeditari a natura non vult: 
artibus etiam aliis alias gentes dat excellere. Quo ista, nisi 
quod voluit mutua egestate et copia humanas foveri amicitias, 
ne singuli se putantes sibi ipsis sufficere, hoc ipso redderentur 
insociabiles?, Nunc factum est ut gens altera alterius sup- 
pleret inopiam, divinae iustitiae instituto, ut eo modo (sicut 
Plinius dicit*) quod genitum esset uspiam, apud omnes 
natum videretur. Poetas itaque canentes audimus: 


Nec vero terrae ferre omnes omnia possunt.’ 


Item: 


Eacudent alii, 
et quae sequuntur.® 


* Panegyricus 29, 2: quod genitum esset usquam, id apud omnes natum esse 
videtur. 


* Vergil, Georgica II, 109. 
> Vergil, Aeneis VI, 847-853. 


CHAPTER I 


By the Law of Nations navigation is free to all persons 
whatsoever 


My intention is to demonstrate briefly and clearly that 
the Dutch—that is to say, the subjects of the United 
Netherlands—have the right to sail to the Kast Indies, as 
they are now doing, and to engage in trade with the people 
there. I shall base my argument on the following most 
specific and unimpeachable axiom of the Law of Nations, 
called a primary rule or first principle, the spirit of which 
is self-evident and immutable, to wit: Every nation is free 
to travel to every other nation, and to trade with it. 

God Himself says this speaking through the voice of 
nature; and inasmuch as it is not His will to have Nature 
supply every place with all the necessaries of life, He ordains 


that some nations excel in one art and others in another. | 


Why is this His will, except it be that He wished human 
friendships to be engendered by mutual needs and resources, 
lest individuals deeming themselves entirely sufficient unto 
themselves should for that very reason be rendered unso- 
ciable? So by the decree of divine justice it was brought 
about that one people should supply the needs of another, 
in order, as Pliny the Roman writer says,’ that in this way, 


whatever has been produced anywhere should seem to have | 


been destined for all. Vergil also sings in this wise: 


“Not every plant on every soil will grow,” * | 
and in another place: 


“ Let others better mould the running mass 
Of metals,” etc.° 
1Panegyric 29, 2. 
?Georgics II, 109 [Dryden’s translation, II, 154]. 
* Aeneid VI, 847-853 [Dryden’s translation, VI, 1168-1169]. 
7 


8 MARE LIBERVM 


Hoe igitur qui tollunt, illam laudatissimam tollunt humani 
generis societatem, tollunt mutuas benefaciendi occasiones, 
naturam denique ipsam violant. Nam et ille quem Deus 
terris circumfudit Oceanus, undique et undique versus navi- 
gabilis, et ventorum stati aut extraordinari flatus, non ab 
eadem semper, et a nulla non aliquando regione spirantes, 
nonne significant satis concessum a natura cunctis gentibus 
ad cunctas aditum? Hoc Seneca* summum Naturae bene- 
ficium putat, quod et vento gentes locis dissipatas miscuit, 
et sua omnia in regiones ita descripsit, ut necessarium morta- 
libus esset inter ipsos commercium. Hoc igitur ius ad 
cunctas gentes aequaliter pertinet: quod clarissimi Iuriscon- 
sulti? eo usque producunt, ut negent ullam rempublicam aut 
Principem prohibere in universum posse, quo minus alii ad 
subditos suos accedant, et cum illis negotientur. Hine ius 
descendit hospitale sanctissimum: hine querelae: 


Quod genus hoc hominum? quaeve hunc tam 
barbara morem 
Permittit patria? hospitio prohibemur harenae.’ 


Kt alibi 


litusque rogamus 
jeieereen et cunctis undamque auramque patentem.* 


Et scimus bella quaedam ex hac causa coepisse, ut Me- 


1 Naturales Quaestiones III, IV. 

* Institutes IJ, 1 (De rerum divisione, § 1); Digest 1, 8, 4 (eod. tit, L. 
Nemo igitur); cf. Gentilis, De jure belli I, 19; cf. Code IV, 63, 4 (De com- 
merciis, L. Mercatores). 

* Vergil, Aeneis I, 539-540, 

* Vergil, Aeneis VII, 229-230. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 8 


Those therefore who deny this law, destroy this most praise- 
worthy bond of human fellowship, remove the opportunities 
for doing mutual service, in a word do violence to Nature 
herself. For do not the ocean, navigable in every direction 
with which God has encompassed all the earth, and the regu- 
lar and the occasional winds which blow now from one 
quarter and now from another, offer sufficient proof that 
Nature has given to all peoples a right of access to all other 


peoples? Seneca* thinks this is Nature’s greatest service, / 
that by the wind she united the widely scattered peoples, | 
and yet did so distribute all her products over the earth that. 


commercial intercourse was a necessity to mankind. ‘There- 
fore this right belongs equally to all nations. Indeed the 
most famous jurists * extend its application so far as to deny 
that any state or any ruler can debar foreigners from having 
access to their subjects and trading with them. Hence is 
derived that law of hospitality which is of the highest sanc- 
tity; hence the complaint of the poet Vergil: 


“ What men, what monsters, what inhwman race, 
What laws, what barbarous customs of the place, 
Shut up a desert shore to drowning men, 
And drive us to the cruel seas again.” * 


And: 


“To beg what you without your want may spare— 
The common water, and the common air.” * 


We know that certain wars have arisen over this very matter; 
such for example as the war of the Megarians against the 


1 Natural Questions III, IV. 

“Institutes II, 1; Digest I, 8, 4; cf. Gentilis, De jure belli I, 19; cf. Code 
IV, 63, 4 [Grotius refers particularly to his famous predecessor Albericus 
Gentilis (1552-1608), an Italian who came to England and was appointed 
to the chair of Regius Professor of Civil Law at Oxford. He published his De 
Jure Belli in 1588]. 

* Aeneid I, 539-540 [Dryden’s translation, I, 760-763]. 

* Aeneid VII, 229-230 [Dryden’s translation, VII, 313-314]. 


9 MARE LIBERVM 


garensibus in Athenienses,* Bononiensibus in. Venetos,’ Cas- 
tellanis etiam in Americanos has iustas potuisse belli causas 
esse, et ceteris probabiliores Victoria putat,* si peregrinari 
et degere apud illos prohiberentur, si arcerentur a partici- 
patione earum rerum quae iure gentium aut moribus com- 
munia sunt, si denique ad commercia non admitterentur. 

Cui simile est quod in Mosis* historia et inde apud 
Augustinum legimus,’ iusta bella Israelitas contra Amor- 
rhaeos gessisse, quia innoxius transitus denegabatur; qui 
IVRE HVMANAE SOCIETATIS aequissimo patere 
debebat. Et hoc nomine Hercules Orchomeniorum, Graeci 
sub Agamemnone Mysorum Regi arma intulerunt,* quasi 
libera essent naturaliter itinera, ut Baldus dixit.’ Accusan- 

1Diodorus Siculus XI; Plutarch, Pericles XXIX, 4. 

? Sigonius, De regno Italiae. 

? Victoria, De Indis II, n. 1-7; Covarruvias, in c. Peccatum, § 9, n. 4, ibi 
Quinta. 

*Numbers XXI, 21-26. 

5 Augustinus, Locutionum IV (de Numeris), 44; Et Estius, c. ult. 23, 4, 2. 


° Sophocles, Trachiniae. © 
* Baldus de Ubaldis, Consilia III, 293. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 9 


Athenians,’ and that of the Bolognese against the Venetians.” | 
Again, Victoria * holds that the Spaniards could have shown 
just reasons for making war upon the Aztecs and the In- 
dians in America, more plausible reasons certainly than 
were alleged, if they really were prevented from traveling 
or sojourning among those peoples, and were denied the 
right to share in those things which by the Law of Nations or 
by Custom are common to all, and finally if they were de- 
barred from trade. 

We read of a similar case in the history of Moses,* which 
we find mentioned also in the writings of Augustine,’ where 
the Israelites justly smote with the edge of the sword the 
Amorites because they had denied the Israelites an innocent | 
passage through their territory, a right which according to 
the Law of Human Society ought in all justice to have been 
allowed. In defense of this principle Hercules attacked the 
king of Orchomenus in Boeotia; and the Greeks under their 
leader Agamemnon waged war against the king of Mysia ° on 


the ground that, as Baldus’ has said, high roads were free 


1Diodorus Siculus XI; Plutarch, Pericles XXIX, 4. [The Athenian de- 
cree prohibiting the Megarians from trading with Athens or any part of the 
Athenian Empire was one of the leading causes of the Peloponnesian War.] 

Carlo Sigonio [(1523-1584), an Italian humanist, in his work] On the 
Kingdom of Italy. 

® Victoria, De Indis II, n. 1-7; Covarruvias, in c. Peccatum, § 9, n. 4, 
ibi Quinta [Franciscus de Victoria (1480-1546), the famous Spanish Scholastic, 
a Dominican, and Professor of Theology at Salamanca from 1521 until his 
death. His thirteen Relectiones (De Indis is no. V) were published (‘vitiosa et 
corrupta’) in 1557 after his death; the 1686 Cologne edition is held to be the 
best. 

Diego Covarruvias (1512-1577), styled the Bartolo of Spain. He should 
probably be credited with formulating the reform decrees of the Council of 
Trent. The 5 vol. Antwerp 1762 edition of his works is the best.] 

*Numbers XXI, 21-26. 

5 Locutionum IV (on Numbers), 44; Estius, c, ult. 23, 4, 2 [Estius (?-1613) 
was a Dutch commentator on the Epistles of St. Paul and on the works of St. 
Augustine]. 

* [Grotius refers to the Trachiniae of Sophocles, but probably from memory, 
for there is no such reference in that play.] 

™Baldus de Ubaldis, Consilia III, 293 [Baldus (1327-1406) was a pupil of 
the great Bartolus]. 


10 MARE LIBERVM 


turque a Germanis apud Tacitum* Romani, quod colloquia 
congressusque gentium arcerent, fluminaque et terras et 
coelum quodam miodo ipsum clauderent. Nec ullus titulus 
Christianis quondam in Saracenos magis placuit, quam quod 
per illos terrae Iudaeae aditu arcerentur.° 

Sequitur ex sententia Lusitanos etiamsi domini essent 
earum regionum ad quas Batavi proficiscuntur, iniuriam 
tamen facturos si aditum Batavis et mercatum praecluderent. 

Quanto igitur iniquius est volentes aliquos a volentium 
populorum commercio secludi, illorum opera quorum in 
potestate nec populi isti sunt, nec illud ipsum, qua iter est, 
quando latrones etiam et piratas non alio magis nomine 
detestamur, quam quod illi hominum inter se commeatus 
obsident atque infestant? 

1 Tacitus, Historiae IV, 64. 


? Andreas Alciatus, Commentaria VII, 130; Covarruvias in c. Peccatum, p. 
2 § 9; Bartolus on Code I, 11 (De paganis, L. 1). 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 10 


by nature. Again, as we read in Tacitus,’ the Germans | 
accused the Romans of ‘ preventing all intercourse between — 
them and of closing up to them the rivers and roads, and 
almost the very air of heaven’, When in days gone by the ' 
Christians made crusades against the Saracens, no other pre- 
text was so welcome or so plausible as that they were denied 
by the infidels free access to the Holy Land.’ 

It follows therefore that the Portuguese, even if they 
had been sovereigns in those parts to which the Dutch make 
voyages, would nevertheless be doing them an injury if 
they should forbid them access to those places and from 
trading there. 

Is it not then an incalculably greater injury for nations 
which desire reciprocal commercial relations to be debarred 
therefrom by the acts of those who are sovereigns neither of 
the nations interested, nor of the element over which their 
connecting high road runs? Is not that the very cause which 
for the most part prompts us to execrate robbers and pirates, 
namely, that they beset and infest our trade routes? 


1 Histories IV, 64 [In connection with the revolt of Civilis]. 

2 Andrea Alciati, Commentaria VII, 130; Covarruvias in c. Peccatum, p. 2 
§ 9; Bartolus on Code I, 11 [Alciati (1492-1550) was made Comes Palatinus by 
the Emperor Charles V, and offered a Cardinal’s hat by Pope Paul III, which 
he refused, but he did become a Protonotarius Apostolicus]. 


CAPVT II 


Lusitanos nullum habere ius dominu in eos 
Indos ad quos Batavi navigant 
titulo inventionis 


Non esse autem Lusitanos earum partium dominos ad 
quas Batavi accedunt, puta LIavae, Taprobanae, partis 
maximae Moluccarum, certissimo argumento colligimus, 
quia dominus nemo est eius rel quam nec ipse umquam nec 
alter ipsius nomine possedit. Habent insulae istae quas 
dicimus et semper habuerunt suos reges, suam rempublican, 
suas leges, sua iura; Lusitanis mercatus, ut aliis gentibus 
conceditur; itaque et tributa cum pendunt, et ius mercandi 
a principibus exorant, dominos se non esse, sed ut externos 
advenire satis testantur; ne habitant quidem nisi precario. 
Et quamquam ad dominium titulus non sufficiat, quia et 
possessio requiritur, cum aliud sit rem habere, aliud ius ad 
rem consequendam, tamen ne titulum quidem dominii in 
eas partes Lusitanis ullum esse affirmo, quem non ipsis 
eripuerit Doctorum, et quidem Hispanorum sententia. 


Primum si dicent inventionis praemio eas terras sibi 
cessisse, nec ius, nec verum dicent. Invenire enim non illud 
est oculis usurpare, sed apprehendere, ut Gordiani epistola 


11 


CHAPTER IT 


The Portuguese have no right by title of discovery to 
sovereignty over the East Indies to which the 
Dutch make voyages 


The Portuguese are not sovereigns of those parts of the 
East Indies to which the Dutch sail, that is to say, Java, ) 
Ceylon,* and many of the Moluccas. This I prove by the, 
incontrovertible argument that no one is sovereign of a 
thing which he himself has never possessed, and which no 
one else has ever held in his name. These islands of which | 
we speak, now have and always have had their own kings, 
their own government, their own laws, and their own legal 
systems. ‘The inhabitants allow the Portuguese to trade 
with them, just as they allow other nations the same privi- 
lege. Therefore, inasmuch as the Portuguese pay tolls, and 
obtain leave to trade from the rulers there, they thereby 
give sufficient proof that they do not go there as sovereigns 
but as foreigners. Indeed they only reside there on suf- 
france. And although the title to sovereignty is not suffi- 
cient, inasmuch as possession is a prerequisite—for having 
a thing is quite different from having the right to acquire 
it—nevertheless I affirm that in those places the Portuguese 
have no title at all to sovereignty which is not denied them 
by the opinion of learned men, even of the Spaniards. 

First of all, if they say that those lands have come under 
their jurisdiction as the reward of discovery, they lie, 
both in law and in fact. For to discover a thing is not only 
to seize it with the eyes but to take real possession thereof, 

*[Taprobane was the ancient name of Ceylon. Milton speaks of it in 
Paradise Regained IV, 75: 


“ And utmost Indian Isle Taprobane.” ] 
11 


12 MARE LIBERVM 


ostenditur;* unde Grammatici* invenire et occupare pro 
verbis ponunt idem significantibus; et tota Latinitas quod 
adepti sumus, id demum invenisse nos dicit, cul oppositum 
est perdere. Quin et ipsa naturalis ratio, et legum diserta 
verba, et eruditiorum interpretatio * manifeste ostendit, ad 
titulum dominii parandum eam demum sufficere inven- 
tionem quae cum possessione coniuncta est, ubi scilicet res 
mobiles apprehenduntur, aut immobiles terminis atque cus- 
todia sepiuntur; * quod in hac specie dici nullo modo potest. 
Nam praesidia illic Lusitani nulla habent. Quid quod ne 
reperisse quidem Indiam ullo modo dici possunt Lusitani, 
quae tot a saeculis fuerat celeberrima. Iam ab Horati 
tempore: ° 


Impiger extremos currit mercator ad Indos 
Per mare pauperiem fugiens. 


Taprobanes pleraque quam exacte nobis Romani descrip- 
sere?° Tam vero et ceteras insulas ante Lusitanos non 


*Code VIII, 40, 13 (De fideiussoribus, L. Si Barsagoram). 

* Nonius Marcellus, De varia significatione sermonum, in verbo ‘ occupare’ 
(p. 562, Lindsay); cf. Connanus, Commentarii juris civilis III, 3; cf. Donellus 
Commentarii de jure civili IV, 10. 

* Institutes II, 1, 13 (De rerum divisione, § Illud quaesitum est). 

* Digest XLI, 2, 3 (De adquirenda possessione, § Neratius). 

° Epistulae I, 1, 44-45. 

* Pliny, Naturalis historia VI, 22. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 12 


as Gordian’ points out in one of his letters. For that 
reason the Grammarians”* give the same signification to the 
expressions ‘ to find’ and ‘ to occupy’; and all Latinity ap- 
plies the phrase ‘ we have found’ only to the thing which 
“we have seized’; and the opposite of this is ‘to lose’. 
However, natural reason itself, the precise words of the 
law, and the interpretation of the more learned men ® all 
show clearly that the act of discovery is sufficient to give 
a clear title of sovereignty only when it is accompanied by 
actual possession. And this only applies of course to mov- 
ables or to such immovables as are actually inclosed within 
fixed bounds and guarded.* No such claim can be estab- 
lished in the present case, because the Portuguese maintain 
no garrisons in those regions. Neither can the Portuguese 
by any possible means claim to have discovered India, a 
country which was famous centuries and centuries ago! It 
was already known as early as the time of the emperor 
Augustus as the following quotation from Horace shows: 


“ That worst of evils, poverty, to shun 
Dauntless through seas, and rocks, and fires you run 
To furthest Ind,’ * 


And have not the Romans described for us in the most 
exact way the greater part of Ceylon?® And as far as the 
other islands are concerned, not only the neighboring 


*Code VIII, 40, 13 [Probably Fabius Claudius Gordianus Fulgentius (468- 
533), a Benedictine monk, one of the Latin Fathers]. 

* Nonius Marcellus, On the various significations of speech, under the word 
“occupare’; cf. Connan, Commentaries on the civil law III, 3; Donellus [Doneau], 
Commentaries on the civil law IV, 10. [Francois de Connan (1508-1551), a 
French jurisconsult, a pupil of Alciati; Hugues Doneau (1527-1591) a famous 
jurisconsult, who wrote many volumes of commentaries on the Digest and the 
Code. ] 

* Institutes II, 1, 13. 

*Digest XLI, 2, 3. 

*Letters I, 1, 44-45 [Francis’s translation, English Poets XIX, 726]. 

°Pliny, Natural History, VI, 22. 


13 MARE LIBERVM 


finitimi tantum Persae et Arabes, sed Europaei etiam, 
praecipue Veneti noverant. 

Praeterea inventio nihil iuris tribuit, nisi in ea quae ante 
inventionem nullius fuerant.* Atqui Indi cum ad eos Lusi- 
tani venerunt, etsi partim idololatrae, partim Mahumetani 
erant, gravibusque peccatis involuti, nihilominus publice 
atque privatim rerum possessionumque suarum dominium 
habuerunt, quod illis sine iusta causa eripi non potuit.’ Ita 
certissimis rationibus post alios auctores maximi nominis 
concludit Hispanus Victoria:* ‘Non possunt’, inquit, 
‘Christiani saeculares aut Ecclesiastici potestate civili et 
principatu privare infideles, eo dumtaxat titulo, quia in- 
fideles sunt, nisi ab eis alia iniuria profecta sit’. 

Fides enim, ut recte inquit Thomas * non tollit ius natu- 
rale aut humanum ex quo dominia profecta sunt. Immo 
credere infideles non esse rerum suarum dominos, haereticum 
est; et res ab illis possessas illis ob hoc ipsum eripere furtum 
est et rapina, non minus quam si idem fiat Christianis. 

Recte igitur dicit Victoria’ non magis ista ex causa 
Hispanis ius in Indos quaesitum, quam Indis fuisset in 
Hispanos, si qui illorum priores in Hispaniam venissent. 
Neque vero sunt Indi Orientis amentes et insensati, sed 

* Digest XLI, 1, 3 (De adquirendo rerum dominio), 

* Covarruvias in c. Peccatum § 10, n. 2, 4, 5. 

* De potestate civili I, 9. 


* Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 10, a. 12. 
5 De Indis I, n. 4-7, 19. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 13 


Persians and Arabs, but even Europeans, particularly the 
Venetians, knew them long before the Portuguese did. 

But in addition to all this, discovery per se gives no 
legal rights over things unless before the alleged discovery 
they were res nullius.. Now these Indians of the East, on 
the arrival of the Portuguese, although some of them were 
idolators, and some Mohammedans, and therefore sunk in 
grievous sin, had none the less perfect public and private 
ownership of their goods and possessions, from which they 
could not be dispossessed without just cause.” The Spanish 
writer Victoria,’ following other writers of the highest 
authority, has the most certain warrant for his conclusion 
that Christians, whether of the laity or of the clergy, can- 
not deprive infidels of their civil power and sovereignty 
merely on the ground that they are infidels, unless some 
other wrong has been done by them. 

For religious belief, as Thomas Aquinas* rightly ob- 
serves, does not do away with either natural or human law 
from which sovereignty is derived. Surely it is a heresy 
to believe that infidels are not masters of their own prop- 
erty; consequently, to take from them their possessions on 
account of their religious belief is no less theft and robbery 
than it would be in the case of Christians. 

Victoria then is right in saying ° that the Spaniards have 
no more legal right over the East Indians because of their 
religion, than the East Indians would have had over the 
Spaniards if they had happened to be the first foreigners 
to come to Spain. Nor are the East Indians stupid and 
unthinking; on the contrary they are intelligent and shrewd, 


Digest XLI, 1, 3. 

* Covarruvias in c. Peccatum § 10, n. 2, 4, 5. 

* De potestate civili I, 9. 

Summa II. II, q. 10, a. 12 [Thomas Aquinas (1227-1274), one of the most 
famous of the Schoolmen and Theologians, spoken of often as Aquila Theologorum, 
and Doctor Angelicus]. 

5 De Indis I, n. 4-7, 19. 


14 MARE LIBERVM 


ingeniosi et solertes, ita ut ne hinc quidem praetextus 
subiciendi possit desumi, qui tamen per se satis est mani- 
festae iniquitatis. Iam olim Plutarchus zpogaotyr mdeovegias 
fuisse dicit 7uepdoar ra BapBapiua,* improbam scilicet alieni 
cupiditatem hoc sibi velum obtendere, quod barbariem 
mansuefacit. Et nunc etiam color ille redigendi invitas 
gentes ad mores humaniores, qui Graecis olim et Alexandro 
usurpatus est, a Theologis omnibus, praesertim Hispanis,* 
improbus atque impius censetur. 


* Vasquius, Preface (n. 5) to Controversiae illustres. 
* [Plutarch, Pompeius LXX]. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 14 


so that a pretext for subduing them on the ground of their 
character could not be sustained. Such a pretext on its 
very face is an injustice. Plutarch said long ago that the 
eivilizing of barbarians had been made the pretext for ag- 
gression, which is to say that a greedy longing for the prop- 
erty of another often hides itself behind such a pretext. 
And now that well-known pretext of forcing nations into a 
higher state of civilization against their will, the pretext 
once seized by the Greeks and by Alexander the Great,* is 
considered by all theologians, especially those of Spain,* to 
be unjust and unholy. 


1 Vasquius, Preface (n. 5) to Controversiae illustres. 
*[Cf. Plutarch, Of the Fortune or Virtue of Alexander the Great I, 5]. 


CAPVT III 


Lusitanos in Indos non habere tus 
dominu titulo donationis 
Pontificiae 


Secundo si Pontificis Alexandri Sexti divisione utentur, 
ante omnia illud attendendum est, volueritne Pontifex 
contentiones tantum Lusitanorum et Castellanorum dirimere, 
quod potuit sane, ut lectus inter illos arbiter, sicut et ipsi 
Reges iam ante inter se ea de re foedera quaedam 
pepigerant; * et hoc si ita est, cum res inter alios acta sit, ad 
ceteras gentes non pertinebit; an vero prope singulos mundi 
trientes duobus populis donare. Quod etsi voluisset, et 
potuisset Pontifex, non tamen continuo sequeretur dominos 
eorum locorum esse Lusitanos, cum donatio dominum non 
faciat, sed secuta traditio;* quare et huic causae possessio 
deberet accedere. 

Tum vero si quis ius ipsum sive divinum sive humanum 
scrutari volet, non autem ex commodo suo metiri, facile 


* Cf. Osorium, 
* Institutes II, 1, 40 (De rerum divisione, § Per traditionem). 


15 


CHAPTER III 


The Portuguese have no right of sovereignty over the 
East Indies by virtue of title based on the Papal 
Donation 


Next, if the partition made by the Pope Alexander VI * 
is to be used by the Portuguese as authority for jurisdiction 
in the East Indies, then before all things else two points 
must be taken into consideration. 

First, did the Pope merely desire to settle the disputes — 
between the Portuguese and the Spaniards? 

This was clearly within his power, inasmuch as he had 
been chosen to arbitrate between them, and in fact the 
kings of both countries had previously concluded certain 
treaties with each other on this very matter.* Now if this 
be the case, seeing that the question concerns only the 
Portuguese and Spaniards, the decision of the Pope will 
of course not affect the other peoples of the world. 

Second, did the Pope intend to give to two nations, | 
each one third of the whole world? 

But even if the Pope had intended and had had the | 
power to make such a gift, still it would not have made 
the Portuguese sovereigns of those places. For it is not a 
donation that makes a sovereign, it is the consequent de- 
livery of a thing’ and the subsequent possession thereof. 

Now, if any one will scrutinize either divine or human 
law, not merely with a view to his own interests, he will 

1[Grotius cites Osorius, but gives no reference.] 

2 Institutes II, 1, 40. 

* [The Cambridge Modern History, I, 23-24, has a good paragraph upon this 


famous Papal Bull of May 14, 1493 (modified June 7, 1494, by treaty of 


Tordesillas).] 
| 15 


16 MARE LIBERVM 


deprehendet donationem eiusmodi ut rei alienae nullius esse 
momenti. Disputationem de potestate Pontificis, hoc est 
Episcopi Romanae Ecclesiae, hic non aggrediar, nec quic- 
quam ponam nisi ex hypothesi, hoc est, quod confitentur 
homines inter eos eruditissimi, qui plurimum Pontificiae 
tribuunt auctoritati, maxime Hispani, qui cum pro sua per- 
spicacia facile vident Dominum Christum omne a se 
terrenum imperium abdicasse,* mundi certe totius dominium, 
qua homo fuit, non habuisse, et si habuisset, nullis tamen 
argumentis astrui posse ius illud in Petrum, aut Romanam 
Ecclesiam Vicarii iure translatum; cum alias etiam certum 
sit, ‘multa Christum habuisse in quae Pontifex non succes- 
serit,” intrepide affirmarunt (utar ipsorum verbis) Pontifi- 
cem non esse dominum civilem aut temporalem totius orbis.” 
Immo etiam si quam talem potestatem in mundo haberet, 
eam tamen non recte exerciturum, cum spirituali sua 
lurisdictione contentus esse debeat, saecularibus autem 
Principibus eam concedere nullo modo posse. ‘Tum vero 
si quam habeat potestatem, eam habere, ut loquuntur in 
ordine ad spiritualia.* Quocirca nullam illi esse potestatem 
in populos infideles, ut qui ad Ecclesiam non pertineant.’ 

Vnde sequitur ex sententia Caietani et Victoriae et 

1Luke XII, 14; John XVIII, 36; Victoria, De Indis I, n. 25, 

7'Victoria XVI, n. 27. 

* Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 21; Turre Cremata II, ec. 118; Hugo on 
Dist. XCVI, C. VI (Cum ad verum); Bernhardus, De consolatione ad Eugenium 
II; Victoria, De Indis I, n. 27; Covarruvias in c. Peccatum § 9, n, 7, 

‘Matthew XVII, 27; XX, 26; John VI, 15. 


5 Victoria, De Indis I, n. 28, 30; Covarruvias on I Corinthians V in fine; 
Thomas Aquinas, Summa II, II, q. 12, a. 2; Ayala, De Jure I, 2, 29. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 16 


easily apprehend that a donation of this kind, dealing with 
the property of others, is of no effect. I shall not enter 
here upon any discussion as to the power of the Pope, 
that is the Bishop of the Roman Church, nor shall I advance 
anything but a hypothesis which is accepted by men of the 
greatest erudition, who lay the greatest stress on the power 
of the Pope, especially the Spaniards, who with their perspi- 
cacity easily see that our Lord Jesus Christ when he said 
“My kingdom is not of this world” thereby renounced all 
earthly power,’ and that while He was on earth as a man, 
He certainly did not have dominion over the whole world, 
and if He had had such dominion, still by no arguments 
could such a right be transferred to Peter, or be transmitted 
to the Roman Church by authority of the ‘ Vicar of Christ’; 
indeed, inasmuch as Christ had many things to which the 
Pope did not succeed,’ it has been boldly affirmed—and I 
shall use the very words of the writers—that the Pope is 
neither civil nor temporal Lord of the whole world.*? On 
the contrary, even if the Pope did have any such power on 
earth, still he would not be right in using it, because he 
ought to be satisfied with his own spiritual jurisdiction, 
and be utterly unable to grant that power to temporal 
princes. So then, if the Pope has any power at all, he has it, 
as they say, in the spiritual realm only.* Therefore he has 
no authority over infidel nations, for they do not belong 
to the Church.’ 

It follows therefore according to the opinions of 


1ZLuke XII, 14; John XVIII, 36; Victoria, De Indis I, n, 25. 

Victoria XVI, n. 27. 

® Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 21; Torquemada II, c. 113; Hugo on 
Dist. XCVI, C. VI; St. Bernard, Admonitory epistle to Pope Eugene III, book 2; 
Victoria, De Indis I, n. 27; Covarruvias in c. Peccatum § 9, n. 7. 

‘Matthew XVII, 27; XX, 26; John VI, 15. 

5 Victoria, De Indis I, n. 28, 30; Covarruvias on I Corinthinas V, at the 
end; Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 12, a. 2; Ayala, De Jure I, 2, 29 [Best 
edition of Ayala is in The Classics of International Law, Carnegie Institution of 
Washington, 2 vol., 1912]. 


17 MARE LIBERVM 


potioris partis tam Theologorum quam Canonistarum,’ non 
esse idoneum titulum adversus Indos, vel quia Papa 
dederit provincias illas tamquam dominus absolute, vel quia 
non recognoscunt dominium Papae; atque adeo ne Sara- 
cenos quidem isto titulo umquam spoliatos. 

* Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 66, a. 8; Silvius, De infidelibus § 7; 


Innocentius on Decretales Gregorii Papae IX, III, 34, 8 (De voto, c. Quod super 
his); Victoria, De Indis 1, n. 31. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 17 


Cajetan and Victoria and the more authoritative of the 
Theologians and writers on Canon Law," that there is no clear 
title against the East Indians, based either on the ground 
that the Pope made an absolute grant of those provinces as 
if he were their sovereign, or on the pretext that the East 
Indians do not recognize his sovereignty. Indeed, and in 
truth, it may be affirmed that no such pretext as that was 
ever invoked to despoil even the Saracens. 


*Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 66, a. 8; Silvius, De infidelibus § 7; 
Innocent on the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX, III, 34, 8; Victoria, De Indis I, 
n. 31. [Franciscus Silvius, or Sylvius, or du Bois (1581-1649), was a Belgian 
theologian. ] 


CAPVT IV 


Lusitanos in Indos non habere ws 
domini titulo belli. 


His igitur sublatis cum manifestum sit, quod et Vic- 
toria scribit,* Hispanos ad terras remotiores illas navigantes 
nullum ius secum attulisse occupandi eas provincias, unus 
dumtaxat titulus belli restat, qui et ipse si iustus esset, tamen 
ad dominium proficere non posset, nisi lure praedae, hoc 
est post occupationem. Atqui tantum abest ut Lusitani eas 
res occupaverint, ut cum plerisque gentibus quas Batavi 
accesserunt, bellum eo tempore nullum haberent. Et sic 
igitur nullum ius illis quaeri potuit, cum etiam si quas ab 
Indis pertulissent iniurias, eas longa pace et amicis com- 
merclis remisisse merito censeantur. 

Quamquam ne fuit quidem quod bello obtenderent. 
Nam qui Barbaros bello persequuntur ut Americanos 
Hispani, duo solent praetexere, quod ab illis commercio 
arceantur, aut quod doctrinam verae religionis illi nolent 
agnoscere. Et commercia quidem Lusitani ab Indis mm- 
petrarunt,’ ut hac in parte nihil habeant quod querantur. 


* De Indis I, n. 31. 
° Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c, 24; Victoria, De Indis II, n. 10. 


18 


CHAPTER IV 


The Portuguese have no right of sovereignty over the East 
Indies by title of war 


Since it is clear, (as Victoria also says), from the re- 
futation of any claim to title from the Pope’s Donation, 
that the Spaniards when they sailed to those distant lands 
did not carry with them any right to occupy them as 
provinces, only one kind of title remains to be considered, 
namely, that based upon war. But even if this title could | 
be justified, it would not serve to establish sovereignty, | 
except by right of conquest, that is to say, occupation would | 
be a prerequisite. But the Portuguese were as far as_ 
possible from occupation of those lands. They were not 
even at war with most of the peoples whom the Dutch 
visited. So therefore no legal claim could be established 
there by the Portuguese, because even if they had suffered 
wrongs from the East Indians, it might reasonably be con- 
sidered by the long peace and friendly commercial rela- 
tions that those injuries had been forgiven. 

Indeed there was no pretext at all for going to war. 
For those who force war upon barbarous peoples, as the 
Spaniards did upon the aborigines of America, commonly 
allege one of two pretexts: either that they have been re- 
fused the right to trade, or that the barbarians are unwill- 
ing to acknowledge the doctrines of the True Faith. But 
as the Portuguese actually obtained from the East Indians 
the right to trade,’ they have, on that score at least, no 


De Indis I, n. 31. 
?'Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 24; Victoria, De Indis II, n. 10, 
18 


19 MARE LIBERVM 


Alter vero obtentus nihilo est iustior, quam ille Graecorum in 


Barbaros, quo Boéthius respexit: * 


An distant quia dissidentque mores, 
Iniustas acies, et fera bella movent, 
Alternisque volunt perire telis? 

Non est iusta satis saevitiae ratio. 


Ista autem et Thomae et Concili Toletani et Gregori et 
Theologorum, Canonistarum, Iurisprudentiumque fere 
omnium conclusio est: * Quantumcumque fides annuntiata 
sit Barbaris (nam de his qui subditi ante fuerunt Christianis 
Principibus item de Apostatis alia est quaestio) probabiliter 
et sufficienter, et si noluerint eam respicere, non tamen 
licere hac ratione eos bello persequi, et spoliare bonis suis.” 

Operae pretium est in hance rem ipsa Caietani verba 
describere: * ‘Quidam’, ait, ‘infideles nec de iure nec de 
facto subsunt secundum temporalem iurisdictionem Prin- 
cipibus Christianis, ut inveniuntur pagani, qui numquam 
imperio Romano subditi fuerunt, terras habitantes, in quibus 
Christianum numquam fuit nomen. Horum namque 
domini, quamvis infideles, legitimi domini sunt, sive regali 
sive politico regimine gubernantur; nec sunt propter in- 
fidelitatem a dominio suorum privati, cum dominium sit 


*De consolatione philosophiae IV, carmen 4, 7-10. 

* Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 10, a. 8; Dist. XLV, C. V (De Iudeis), 
C, III (Qui sincera); Innocentius, cf. note 1, page 17; Bartolus on Code I, 11, 1 
(De paganis) ; Covarruvias in c. Peccatum, § 9, 10; Ayala, De Jure I, 2, 28. 

* Matthew X, 23. 

*On Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 4, 66, a. 8. 





FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 19 


grounds of complaint. Nor is there any better justification 
for the other pretext than the one alleged by the Greeks 
against the barbarians, to which Boéthius makes the follow- 
ing allusion: 


“Unjust and cruel wars they wage, 
And haste with flying darts the death to meet or 
deal. 
No right nor reason can they show; 
"Tis but because their lands and laws are not the 
same.” * 


Moreover the verdict of Thomas Aquinas, of the Council of 
Toledo, of Gregory, and of nearly all theologians, canon- 
ists, and jurists, is as follows: * However persuasively and 
sufficiently the True Faith has been preached to the heathen 
—former subjects of Christian princes or apostates are quite © 
another question—if they are unwilling to heed it, that is | 
not sufficient cause to justify war upon them, or to despoil © 
them of their goods.° 

It is worth while on this point to quote the actual words 
of Cajetan:* ‘There are some infidels who are neither in 
law nor in fact under the temporal jurisdiction of Christian 
princes; just as there were pagans who were never sub- 
jects of the Roman Empire, and yet who inhabit lands 
where the name of Christ was never heard. Now their 
rulers, though heathen, are legitimate rulers, whether the 
people live under a monarchical or a democratic régime. 
They are not to be deprived of sovereignty over their pos- 

1On the Consolation of Philosophy IV, 4, 7-10 [H. R. James’ translation, 
_ page 194]. 

Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 10, a. 8; Dist. XLV, C. V, C. III; 
Innocent, see note 1, page 17; Bartolus on Code I, 11, 1; Covarruvias in c. 
Peccatum, § 9, 10; Ayala, De Jure I, 2, 28. 

* Matthew X, 23. 

“On Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 4, 66, a. 8 [Thomas de Cajetan 


(1469-1534), an Italian cardinal, wrote voluminous commentaries on Thomas 
Aquinas, Aristotle, and the Bible]. 


20 MARE LIBERVM 


ex iure positivo, et infidelitas ex divino iure, quod non tollit 
ius positivum, ut superius in quaestione habitum est. Et 
de his nullam scio legem quoad temporalia, Contra hos 
nullus Rex, nullus Imperator, nec Ecclesia Romana potest 
movere belium ad occupandas terras eorum, aut subiciendos 
illos temporaliter; quia nulla subest causa iusta belli, cum 
Tesus Christus Rex Regum, cui data est potestas in caelo et 
in terra, miserit ad capiendam possessionem mundi, non 
milites armatae militiae, sed sanctos praedicatores, sicut 
oves inter lupos. Vnde nec in testamento veteri, ubi armata 
manu possessio erat capienda, terrae infidelium inductum 
lego bellum alicui propter hoe quod non erant fideles, sed 
quia nolebant dare transitum, vel quia eos offenderant, ut 
Madianitae, vel ut recuperarent sua, divina largitate sibi 
concessa. Wnde GRAVISSIME PECCAREMYS, si 
fidem Christi Iesu per hance viam ampliare contenderemus; 
nec essemus LEGITIMI DOMINT illorum, sed MAGNA 
LATROCINIA committeremus, et teneremur ad restitu- 
tionem, utpote INIVSTI DEBELLATORES AVT 
OCCVPATORES. Mlittendi essent ad hos praedicatores 


boni viri, qui verbo et exemplo converterent eos ad Deum; ~ 


et non qui eos opprimant, spolient, scandalizent, subiciant, 
et duplo gehennae filios faciant, more Pharisaeorum ’, 

Kt in hance formam audimus saepe a Senatu in Hispania, 
et Theologis praecipue Dominicanis decretum fuisse, sola 
verbi praedicatione non bello Americanos ad fidem tradu- 
cendos; libertatem etiam quae illis eo nomine erepta esset, 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 20 


sessions because of their unbelief, since sovereignty is a 
matter of positive law, and unbelief is a matter of divine 
law, which cannot annul positive law, as has been argued 
above. In fact I know of no law against such unbelievers | 
as regards their temporal possessions. Against them no 
King, no Emperor, not even the Roman Church, can de- 
clare war for the purpose of occupying their lands, or of 
subjecting them to temporal sway. For there is no just 
cause for war, since Jesus Christ the King of Kings, to 
whom all power was given in heaven and on earth, sent out 
for the conquest of the world not armed soldiers, but holy 
disciples, ‘“‘as sheep in the midst of wolves.” Nor do I 
read in the Old Testament, when possession had to be 
obtained by force of arms, that the Israelites waged war 
on any heathen land because of the unbelief of its inhabi- 
tants; but it was because the heathen refused them the right 
of innocent passage, or attacked them, as the Midianites 
did; or it was to recover the possessions which had been 
bestowed upon them by divine bounty. Wherefore we 
should be most miserable sinners if we should attempt to 
extend the religion of Jesus Christ by such means, Nor 
should we be their lawful rulers, but, on the contrary, we 
should be committing great robberies, and be compelled to 
make restitution as unjust conquerors and invaders. There 
must be sent to them as preachers, good men to convert 
them to God by their teaching and example; not men who 
will oppress them, despoil them, subdue and proselytize 
them, and “ make them twofold more the children of hell 
than themselves,” * after the manner of the Pharisees ’. 
Indeed I have often heard that it has been decreed by | 
the Council of Spain, and by the Churchmen, especially the 
Dominicans, that the Americans (Aztecs and Indians) 
should be converted to the Faith by the preaching of the 
Word alone, and not by war, and even that their liberty of 
* Matthew XXIII, 15. 


21 MARE LIBERVM 


restitui debere, quod a Paulo tertio Pontifice, et Carolo V 
Imperatore Hispaniarum Rege comprobatum dicitur. 

Omittimus iam Lusitanos in plerisque partibus religionem 
nihil promovere, ne operam quidem dare, cum soli lucro 
invigilent. Immo et illud ibi verum esse, quod de Hispanis 
in America Hispanus scripsit, non miracula, non signa 
audiri, non exempla vitae religiosae, quae ad eandem fidem 
alios possent impellere, sed multa scandala, multa facinora, 
multas impietates. 

Quare cum et possessio et titulus deficiat possessionis, 
neque res dicionesque Indorum pro talibus haberi debeant 
quasi nullius ante fuissent, neque cum illorum essent, ab 
aliis recte acquiri potuerint, sequitur _Indorum populos, de 
quibus nos loquimur, Lusitanorum proprios non esse, sed 
liberos, et sui iuris; de quo ipsi doctores Hispani non 
dubitant.* 


* Victoria, De Indis II, 1. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 21 


which they had been robbed in the name of religion should 
be restored. ‘This policy is said to have received the approval 
of Pope Paul III, and of Emperor Charles V, King of the 
Spains. 

I pass over the fact that the Portuguese in most places 
do not further the extension of the faith, or indeed, pay 
any attention to it at all, since they are alive only to the 
acquisition of wealth. Nay, the very thing that is true of 
them, is the very thing which has been written of the Span- 
iards in America by a Spaniard, namely, that nothing is 
heard of miracles or wonders or examples of devout and 
religious life such as might convert others to the same faith, 
but on the other hand no end of scandals, of crimes, of 
impious deeds, 

Wherefore, since both possession and a title of posses- 
sion are lacking, and since the property and the sovereignty 
of the East Indies ought not to be considered as if they had 
previously been res nullius, and since, as they belong to the 
East Indians, they could not have been acquired legally 
by other persons, it follows that the Kast Indian nations in 
question are not the chattels of the Portuguese, but are 
free men and sui juris. ‘This is not denied even by the 
Spanish jurists themselves.’ 


1 Victoria, De Indis II, 1. 


CAPVT V 


Mare ad Indos aut ius eo navigandi non 
esse proprium Lusitanorum titulo 
occupationis 


Si ergo in populos terrasque et diciones Lusitani ius 
nullum quaesiverunt, videamus an mare et navigationem, 
aut mercaturam sui iuris facere potuerint. De mari autem 
prima sit consideratio, quod cum passim in iure aut nullius, 
aut commune, aut publicum iuris gentium dicatur, hae 
voces quid significent ita commodissime explicabitur, si 
Poetas ab Hesiodo omnes, et Philosophos; et Iurisconsultos 
veteres imitati in tempora distinguamus, ea, quae tempore 
forte haud longo, certa tamen ratione, et sui natura discreta 
sunt. Neque nobis vitio verti debet si in iuris a natura pro- 
cedentis explicatione auctoritate et verbis eorum utimur 
quos constat naturali iudicio plurimum valuisse. 

Sciendum est igitur in primordiis vitae humanae aliud 
quam nunc est dominium, aliud communionem fuisse.* Nam 
dominium nunc proprium quid significat, quod scilicet ita 
est alicuius ut alterius non sit eodem modo. Commune 
autem dicimus, cuius proprietas inter plures consortio 


* Castrensis on Digest I, 1, 5 (De iustitia et iure, L. Ex hoc Ripe Dist. I, 
C. VII (lus naturale). 


22 % 


CHAPTER V 


Neither the Indian Ocean nor the right of navigation 
thereon belongs to the Portuguese by title of 
occupation. 


If therefore the Portuguese have acquired no legal right 
over the nations of the East Indies, and their territory and 
sovereignty, let us consider whether they have been able to 
obtain exclusive jurisdiction over the sea and its navigation 
or over trade. Let us first consider the case of the sea. 

Now, in the legal phraseology of the Law of Nations, 
the sea is called indifferently the property of no one (res 
nullius), or a common possession (res communis), or public 
property (res publica). It will be most convenient to ex- 
plain the signification of these terms if we follow the prac- 
tice of all the poets since Hesiod, of the philosophers and 
jurists of the past, and distinguish certain epochs, the divi- 
sions of which are marked off perhaps not so much by in- 
tervals of time as by obvious logic and essential character. 
And we ought not to be criticised if in our explanation of a 
law deriving from nature, we use the authority and defini- 
tion of those whose natural judgment admittedly is held in 
the highest esteem. 

It is therefore necessary to explain that in the earliest 
stages of human existence both sovereignty and common 
possession had meanings other than those which they bear 
at the present time.’ For nowadays sovereignty means a 
particular kind of proprietorship, such in fact that it abso- 
lutely excludes like possession by any one else. On the 
other hand, we call a thing ‘common’ when its ownership 


*Paul de Castro on Digest I, 1, 5; Dist. I, C, VII. 
22 


23 MARE LIBERVM 


quodam aut consensu collata est exclusis alis. Linguarum 
paupertas coegit voces easdem in re non eadem usurpare. 
Et sic ista nostri moris nomina ad ius illud pristnum 
similitudine quadam et imagine referuntur. Commune 
igitur tune non aliud fuit quam quod simpliciter proprio 
opponitur; dominium autem facultas non iniusta utendi re 
communi, quem usum Scholasticis * visum est facti non iuris 
vocare, quia qui nunc in iure usus vocatur, proprium est 
quiddam, aut ut illorum more loquar, privative ad alios 
dicitur. 

Iure primo Gentium, quod et Naturale interdum dicitur, 
et quod poetae alibi aetate aurea, alibi Saturni aut Lustitiae 
regno depingunt, nihil proprium fuit; quod Cicero dixit: 
‘Sunt autem privata nulla natura’, Et Horatius: * 


Nam PROPRIAE tellus ERVM NATVRA 
neque illum 
Nec me nec quemquam statuit. 


Neque enim potuit natura dominos distinguere. Hoc igitur 
significatu res omnes eo tempore communes fuisse dicimus, 
idem innuentes quod poetae cum primos homines in medium 
quaesivisse, et [ustitiam casto foedere res medias tenuisse * 
dicunt; quod ut clarius explicent, negant eo tempore campos 
limite partitos, aut commercia fuisse ulla. 


. promiscua rura per agros 
Proeirsnine cunctis COMMVNIA cuncta 
VIDERI, 


* 'Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 1, n. 10; Lib. VI, V, 12, 3 (De 
verborum significatione, c. Exiit, qui seminat); Clem. V, 11 (De verborum sig- 
nificatione, c. Exivi de paradiso). 

*Sermones II, 2, 129-130. 

* Avienus, Aratus 302-303 [promisca quetura V; promiscaque cura A; iura 
peragros; praestiterat Buhlius, Breyzig]. 

*[in medium quaerebant, Vergil, Georgica I, 127; medias casto res more 
tenebas, Avienus, Aratus, 298 (W. P. Mustard) ]. 


7 
\ 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 23 


or possession is held by several persons jointly according 
to a kind of partnership or mutual agreement from which 
all other persons are excluded. Poverty of language com- 
pels the use of the same words for things that are not the 
same. And so because of a certain similarity and likeness, 
our modern nomenclature is applied to that state of primi- 
tive law. Now, in ancient times, ‘common’ meant simply 
the opposite of ‘ particular’; and ‘ sovereignty ’ or ‘ owner- 
ship ’, meant the privilege of lawfully using common prop- 
erty. This seemed to the Scholastics * to be a use in fact 
but not in law, because what now in law is called use, is a 
particular right, or if I may use their phraseology, is, in 
respect to other persons, a privative right. 

In the primitive law of nations, which is sometimes 
called Natural Law, and which the poets sometimes por- 
tray as having existed in a Golden Age, and some- 
times in the reign of Saturn or of Justice, there was no 
particular right. As Cicero says: ‘ But nothing is by nature 
private property ’. And Horace: * ‘ For nature has decreed 
to be the master of private soil neither him, nor me, nor any- 
one else’. For nature knows no sovereigns. ‘Therefore in 
this sense we say that in those ancient times all things were 
held in common, meaning what the poets do when they say 
that primitive men acquired everything in common, and 
that Justice maintained a community of goods by means of 
an inviolable compact. And to make this clearer, they say 
that in those primitive times the fields were not delimited 
by boundary lines, and that there was no commercial inter- 
course. [As Avienus says]:* ‘ The promiscuity of the fields 
had made everything seem common to all’. 

The word ‘seemed’ is rightly added, owing to the 
changed meaning of the words, as we have noted above. 

1 Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 1, n. 10; Lib. VI, V, 12, 3; Clem. V, 11. 


2 Satires ITI, 2, 129-130, 
8’ Aratus 302-303. 


24 MARE LIBERVM 


Recte additum est ‘ videri ’ propter translationem ut diximus 
vocabuli. Communio autem ista ad usum referebatur: * 


. ee pervium cunctis iter, 
COMMVNIS VSVS omnium rerum fut. 


Cuius ratione dominium quoddam erat, sed universale, et 
indefinitum; Deus enim res omnes non huic aut illi dederat, 
sed humano generi, atque eo modo plures in solidum eiusdem 
rei domini esse non prohibebantur; quod si hodierna significa- 
tione sumamus dominium, contra omnem est rationem. Hoc 
enim proprietatem includit, quae tunc erat penes neminem. 
Aptissime autem illud dictum est: ” 


omnia rerum 
V surpantis erant, 


Ad eam vero, quae nunc est, dominiorum distinctionem 
non impetu quodam, sed paulatim ventum videtur, initium 
elus monstrante natura. Cum enim res sint nonnullae, 
quarum usus in abusu consistit, aut quia conversae in sub- 
stantiam utentis nullum postea usum admittunt, aut quia 
utendo fiunt ad usum deteriores, in rebus prioris generis, ut 
cibo et potu, proprietas statim quaedam ab usu non seiuncta 
emicuit.* Hoc enim est proprium esse, ita esse cuiusquam 
ut et alterius esse non possit; quod deinde ad res posterioris 
generis, vestes puta, et res mobiles alias aut se moventes 
ratione quadam productum est. 

Quod cum esset, ne res quidem immobiles omnes, agri 


1 Seneca, Octavia 413-414. 

? Avienus, Aratus 302. 

* Digest VII, 5 (De usu fructu earum rerum, quae usu consumuntur vel 
minuuntur) ; Extravag. XIV, 3 et 5 (De verborum significatione, c. Ad conditorem, 
et c. Quia quorundam); Thomas Aquinas, Summa II, II, q. 78, 


: 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 24 


But that kind of common possession relates to use, as is seen 
from a quotation from Seneca: * 


“ Every path was free, 
All things were used in common.” 


According to his reasoning there was a kind of sovereignty, 
but it was universal and unlimited. For God had not given 
all things to this individual or to that, but to the entire 
human race, and thus a number of persons, as it were en 
masse, were not debarred from being substantially sover- 
eigns or owners of the same thing, which is quite contra- 
dictory to our modern meaning of sovereignty. For it now 
implies particular or private ownership, a thing which no 
one then had. Avienus has said very pertinently:’ ‘ All 
things belonged to him who had possession of them’, 

It seems certain that the transition to the present dis- 
tinction of ownerships did not come violently, but grad- 
ually, nature herself pointing out the way. For since there 
are some things, the use of which consists in their being 
used up, either because having become part of the very 
substance of the user they can never be used again, or be- 
cause by use they become less fit for future use, it has be- 
come apparent, especially in dealing with the first category, 
such things as food and drink for example, that a certain 
kind of ownership is inseparable from use.’ For ‘own’ 
implies that a thing belongs to some one person, in such 
a way that it cannot belong to any other person. By the 
process of reasoning this was next extended to things of 
the second category, such as clothes and movables and some 
living things. 

When that had come about, not even immovables, such, 

1 Octavia 413-414 [Translation by E. I. Harris (Act II, Scene 1)]. 


? Aratus 302. 
* Digest VII, 5; Extravagantes of Pope John XXII, XIV, 3 and 5; Thomas 


_ Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 78. 


25 MARE LIBERVM 


puta, indivisae manere potuerunt; quamquam enim horum 
usus non simpliciter in abusu consistat, eorum tamen: usus 
abusus cuiusdam causa comparatus est, ut arva et arbusta 
cibi causa, pascua etiam vestium; omnium autem usibus 
promiscue sufficere non possunt. Repertae proprietati lex 
posita est, quae naturam imitaretur. Sicut enim initio per 
applicationem corporalem usus ille habebatur, unde pro- 
prietatem primum ortam diximus, ita simili applicatione 
res proprias culusque fieri placuit. Haec est quae dicitur 
occupatio, voce accommodatissima ad eas res quae ante in 
medio positae fuerant; quo Seneca Tragicus alludit: * 


IN MEDIO est scelus 
POSITVM OCCVPANTI. 


Kt Philosophus: ? ‘ Kquestria OMNIVM equitum Romano- 
rum sunt. In illis tamen locus meus fit PROPRIVS, 
quem OCCVPAVI’. Hine Quintilianus dicit,? quod omni- 
bus nascitur, industriae esse praemium; et Tullius,’ factas 
esse veterl occupatione res eorum qui quondam in vacua 
venerant. 

Occupatio autem haec in his rebus quae possessioni 
renituntur, ut sunt ferae bestiae, perpetua esse debet, in 
aliis sufficit, corpore coeptam possessionem animo retineri. 
Occupatio in mobilibus est apprehensio, in immobilibus 


* Thyestes 203-204 (F. CXXII). 

? De beneficiis VII, 12, 3. 

* Ps. Quintilianus, Declamatio XIII (Pro paupere). 
* Cicero, De officiis I. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 25 


for instance, as fields, could remain unapportioned. For 
although their use does not consist merely in consumption, 
nevertheless it is bound up with subsequent consumption, 
as fields and plants are used to get food, and pastures to 
get clothing. ‘There is, however, not enough fixed property 
to satisfy the use of everybody indiscriminately. 

When property or ownership was invented, the law of 
property was established to imitate nature. For as that 
use began in connection with bodily needs, from which as 
we have said property first arose, so by a similar connection 
it was decided that things were the property of individuals. 
This is called ‘occupation’, a word most appropriate to 
those things which in former times had been held in com- 
mon. It is this to which Seneca alludes in his tragedy 
Thyestes, 


“Crime is between us to be seized by one.” * 


And in one of his philosophical writings he also says: * * The 
equestrian rows of seats belong to all the equites; neverthe- 
less, the seat of which I have taken possession is my own 
private place’. Further, Quintilian remarks * that a thing 
which is created for all is the reward of industry, and Cicero 
says * that things which have been occupied for a long time 
become the property of those who originally found them 
unoccupied. 

This occupation or possession, however, in the case of 
things which resist seizure, like wild animals for example, 
must be uninterrupted or perpetually maintained, but in the 
case of other things it is sufficient if after physical posses- 
sion is once taken the intention to possess is maintained. 
Possession of movables implies seizure, and possession of 


1 203-204 [E. I. Harris’ translation (Act II, Scene 1)]. 
De beneficiis VII, 12, 3. 

* Speech XIII, In behalf of the poor man. 

* De officiis I. 


26 MARE LIBERVM 


instructio aut limitatio; unde Hermogenianus cum dominia 
distincta dicit, addit, agris terminos positos, aedificia col- 
locata.* Hic rerum status a poetis indicatur: 


Tum laqueis captare feras, et fallere visco 
Inventum. 


Tum primum subiere domos.’ 


COMMVNEMQVE PRIVS, ceu lumina solis 
et auras 
Cautus humum longo signavit LIMITE mensor.* 


Celebratur post haec, ut Hermogenianus indicat, commer- 
cium cuius gratia 


Fluctibus ignotis insultavere carinae.* 


Eodem autem tempore et respublicae institui coeperunt. 
Atque ita earum quae a prima communione divulsa erant 
duo facta sunt genera. Alia enim sunt publica, hoc est, 
populi propria (quae est genuina istius vocis significatio) 
alia mere privata, hoc est, singulorum. Occupatio autem 
publica eodem modo fit, quo privata. Seneca:° ‘ Fines 
Atheniensium, aut Campanorum vocamus, quos deinde inter 
se vicini privata terminatione distinguunt’. Gens enim 
unaquaeque 

*Digest I, 1, 5 (De iustitia et iure, L. Ex hoc iure). 

2 Vergil, Georgica I, 139-140; Ovid, Metamorphoses I, 121. 

? Ovid, Metamorphoses I, 135-136. 


* Ovid, Metamorphoses I, 134 (exsultavere, Magnus). 
5 De beneficiis WII, 4, 3. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 26 


immovables either the erection of buildings or some de- 
termination of boundaries, such as fencing in. Hence 
Hermogenianus, in speaking of separate ownerships, adds 
the boundaries set to the fields and the buildings thereon 
constructed." This state of things is described thus by the 
poets Vergil and Ovid: 


“Then toils for beasts, and lime for birds, were 
found,” ’ 


Then first men made homes. 


“ Then landmarks limited to each his right, 
For all before was common as the light.” ° 


In still another place, as Hermogenianus points out, Ovid 
praises commerce, for the sake of which: * 


* Ships in triumph sail the unknown seas ’. 


At the same time, however, states began to be established, 
and so two categories were made of the things which had 
been wrested away from early ownership in common. For 
some things were public, that is, were the property of the 
people (which is the real meaning of that expression) , while 
other things were private, that is, were the property of in- 
dividuals. Ownership, however, both public and private, 
arises in the same way. On this point Seneca says:° ‘We 
speak in general of the land of the Athenians or the Cam- 
panians. It is the same land which again by means of 
private boundaries is divided among individual owners’. 


Digest I, 1, 5. 

? Vergil, Georgics I, 139-140 [Dryden’s translation I, 211]; Ovid, Metamorphoses 
3,121, 

8 Ovid, Metamorphoses I, 135-136 [Dryden’s translation I (English Poets 
XX, 432)]. 

* Ovid, Metamorphoses I, 134. 

5De beneficiis VII, 4, 3. 


27 MARE LIBERVM 


PARTITA FINES regna constituit, novas 
Evtruait VRBES. 


Hoe modo dicit Cicero agrum Arpinatem Arpinatium dici, 
Tusculanum Tusculanorum: ‘ similisque est ’, inquit, “ priva- 
tarum possessionum discriptio. Ex quo quia suum cuiusque 
fit eorum, quae natura fuerant COMMVNIA, quod cuique 
obtigit, id quisque teneat’.* Contra autem Thucydides * 
eam terram quae in divisione populo nulli obvenit, dopioror, 
hoe est, indefinitam, et limitibus nullis circumscriptam 
vocat.* 

Ex his quae hactenus dicta sunt duo intelligi possunt. 
Prius est, eas res quae occupari non possunt, aut occu- 
patae numquam sunt, nullius proprias esse posse; quia 
omnis proprietas ab occupatione coeperit. Alterum vero, 
eas res omnes, quae ita a natura comparatae sunt, ut aliquo 
utente nihilominus aliis quibusvis ad usum promiscue sufii- 
ciant, eius hodieque condicionis esse, et perpetuo esse debere 
cuius fuerant cum primum a natura proditae sunt. Hoc 
Cicero voluit: ° ‘ Ac latissime quidem patens hominibus inter 
ipsos, omnibus inter omnes societas haec est; in qua omnium 
rerum, quas ad communem hominum usum natura genuit, 
est servanda communitas’. Sunt autem omnes res huius 
generis, in quibus sine detrimento alterius alteri commodari 
potest. Hinc illud esse dicit Cicero: ° ‘ Non prohibere aqua 
profluente ’. Nam aqua profluens qua talis non qua flumen 

* Octavia 431-432, 

* De officiis I, 21. 

* Thucydides I, 139, 2. 

* Duarenus on Digest I, 8 (De divisione rerum). 


5 De officiis I, 51. 
° De officiis I, 52. 


tims 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 27 


‘For each nation’, Seneca says in another place, ‘ made its 
territories into separate kingdoms and built new cities’? 
Thus Cicero says: “ On this principle the lands of Arpinum 
are said to belong to the Arpinates, the Tusculan lands to 
the Tusculans; and similar is the assignment of private 
property. Therefore, inasmuch as in each case some of 
those things which by nature had been common property 
became the property of individuals, each one should retain 
possession of that which has fallen to his lot.”* On the 
other hand Thucydides ® calls the land which in the division 
falls to no nation, aopioros, that is, undefined, and unde- 
termined by boundaries.* 


Two conclusions may be drawn from what has thus far | 


been said. The first is, that that which cannot be occupied, 
or which never has been occupied, cannot be the property 
of any one, because all property has arisen from occupation. 
The second is, that all that which has been so constituted 


by nature that although serving some one person it still | 


suffices for the common use of all other persons, is today 
and ought in perpetuity to remain in the same condition as 
when it was first created by nature. This is what Cicero 
meant when he wrote: “ This then is the most comprehen- 
sive bond that unites together men as men and all to all; 
and under it the common right to all things that nature has 
produced for the common use of man is to be maintained.” ” 
All things which can be used without loss to any one else 
come under this category. Hence, says Cicero, comes the 
well known prohibition: ° ‘ Deny no one the water that flows 
by’. For running water considered as such and not as a 


+ Octavia 431-432 [Grotius here takes a slight liberty with the context]. 
2 De officiis I, 21 [Walter Miller’s (Loeb) translation, page 23]. 

* History I, 139, 2. 

*Duaren [a French humanist (1509-1559)], on Digest I, 8. 

5 De officiis I, 51 [Walter Miller’s (Loeb) translation, page 55]. 

§ De officiis I, 52. 


28 MARE LIBERVM 


est, inter communia omnium a Lurisconsultis refertur: et a 
Poeta: * 


Quid prohibetis AQV AS? VSVS COMMVNIS 


aquarum est. 


Nec solem PROPRIVM NATVRA nec AERA 
fecit, 
Nec tenues VNDAS: in PVBLICA munera 


vent. 


Dicit haec non esse natura propria, sicut Vipianus ’” 
natura omnibus patere, tum quia primum a natura prodita 
sunt, et in nullius adhuc dominium pervenerunt (ut loquitur 
Neratius *); tum quia ut Cicero dicit, a natura ad usum 
communem genita videntur. Publica autem vocat tralatitia 
significatione, non quae ad populum aliquem, sed quae ad 
societatem humanam pertinent, quae publica Iuris gentium 
in Legibus vocantur, hoc est, communia omnium, propria 
nullius. 

Huius generis est Aér, duplici ratione, tum quia occupari 
non potest, tum quia usum promiscuum hominibus debet. 
Et eisdem de causis commune est omnium Maris Elemen- 
tum, infinitum scilicet ita, ut possideri non queat, et omnium 
usibus accommodatum: sive navigationem respicimus, sive 
etiam piscaturam. Cuius autem iuris est mare, eiusdem 
sunt si qua mare aliis usibus eripiendo sua fecit, ut arenae 
maris, quarum pars terris continua litus dicitur.t* Recte 
igitur Cicero:* ‘quid tam COMMVNE quam Mare fluc- 


* Ovid, Metamorphoses VI, 349-351 (aquis, 349, and ad publica, 351, Merkel), 

* Digest VIII, 4, 13 (Communia praediorum, L. Venditor). 

* Digest XLI, 1, 14 (De adquirendo rerum dominio, L. Quod in litore) ; 
Comines, Memoirs III, 2; Donellus IV, 2; Digest XLI, 3, 49 (De usucapionibus). 

* Digest I, 8, 10 (De divisione rerum, L, Aristo). 

* Cicero, Loco citato. [Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino 26, 72]. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 28 


stream, is classed by the jurists among the things common 
to all mankind; as is done also by Ovid: * ‘ Why do you deny 
me water? Its use is free to all. Nature has made neither 
_ sun nor air nor waves private property; they are public 
gifts ’. | 

He says that these things are not by nature private 
possession, but that, as Ulpian claims,’ they are by nature 
things open to the use of all, both because in the first place 
they were produced by nature, and have never yet come 
under the sovereignty of any one, as Neratius says;* and in | 
the second place because, as Cicero says, they seem to have | 
been created by nature for common use. But the poet uses | 
‘public’, in its usual meaning, not of those things which 
belong to any one people, but to human society as a whole; 
that is to say, things which are called ‘ public’ are, accord- 
ing to the Laws of the law of nations, the common property 
of all, and the private property of none. 

The air belongs to this class of things for two reasons. 
First, it is not susceptible of occupation; and second its 
common use is destined for all men. For the same reasons 
the sea is common to all, because it is so limitless that it 
cannot become a possession of any one, and because it is 
adapted for the use of all, whether we consider it from the 
point of view of navigation or of fisheries. Now, the same 
right which applies to the sea applies also to the things 
which the sea has carried away from other uses and made 
its own, such for example as the sands of the sea, of which 
the portion adjoining the land is called the coast or shore.* 
_ Cicero therefore argues correctly: ° ‘ What is so common as 


1 Metamorphoses VI, 349-351. 

? Digest VIII, 4, 13. 

® Digest XLI, 1, 14; Comines, Memoirs III, 2; Donellus IV, 2; Digest XLI, 
3, 49. [Philippe de Comines (1445-1509), a French historian, and one of the 
negotiators of the treaty of Senlis (1493).] 

* Digest I, 8, 10. | 

®’ Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino 26, 72. 


29 MARE LIBERVM 


tuantibus, LITVS eiectis’? Etiam Vergilius auram, 
undam, litus cunctis patere dicit. 

Haec igitur sunt illa quae Romani vocant communia 
omnium iure naturali* aut quod idem esse diximus, publica 
iurisgentium, sicut et usum eorum modo communem, modo 
publicum vocant. Quamquam vero etiam ea nullius esse, 
quod ad proprietatem attinet, recte dicantur, multum tamen 
differunt ab his quae nullius sunt, et communi usui attributa 
non sunt, ut ferae, pisces, aves; nam ista si quis occupet, in ius 
proprium transire possunt, illa vero totius humanitatis con- 
sensu proprietati in perpetuum excepta sunt propter usum, 
qui cum sit omnium, non magis omnibus ab uno eripi potest, 
quam a te mihi quod meum est. Hoc est quod Cicero dicit- 
inter prima esse Iustitiae munera, rebus communibus pro 
communibus uti. Scholastici dicerent esse communia alia 
affirmative, alia privative. Distinctio haec non modo 
Turisprudentibus usitata est, sed vulgi etiam confessionem 
exprimit; unde apud Athenaeum convivator mare commune 
esse dicit, at pisces capientium fieri. Et in Plautina Ru- 
dente servo dicenti,’ ‘Mare quidem commune certost omni- 
bus’, assentit piscator, addenti autem, ‘In mari inventust 
communi ’ recte occurrit: 


Meum quod rete atque hami nancti sunt, meum 
potissimumst. 


* Institutes II, 1, 1 et 5 (De rerum divisione, § Et quidem naturali; 
§ Litorum); Digest I, 8, 1, 2, 10 (De rerum divisione) ; Digest XLI, 1, 14 et 50 
(De adquirendo rerum dominio, L. Quod in litore, et L. Quamvis) ; Digest XLVII, 
10, 13 (De iniuriis, L. Iniuriarum § si quis me); Digest XLIII, 8, 3 (Ne quid in 
loco publico, L. Litora) et 4-7. 

2975, 977, 985 (IV, 3). 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 29 


the sea for those who are being tossed upon it, the shore for 
those who have been cast thereon’. Vergil also says that 
the air, the sea, and the shore are open to all men. 

These things therefore are what the Romans call ‘ com- 
mon ’ to all men by natural law,’ or as we have said, ‘ public’ 
according to the law of nations; and indeed they call their 
use sometimes common, sometimes public. Nevertheless, 
although those things are with reason said to be res nullius, 
so far as private ownership is concerned, still they differ 
very much from those things which, though also res nullius, 
have not been marked out for common use, such for example 
as wild animals, fish, and birds. For if any one seizes those 
things and assumes possession of them, they can become 
objects of private ownership, but the things in the former 
category by the consensus of opinion of all mankind are 
forever exempt from such private ownership on account of 
their susceptibility to universal use; and as they belong to 
all they cannot be taken away from all by any one person 
any more than what is mine can be taken away from me by 
you. And Cicero says that one of the first gifts of Justice 
is the use of common property for common benefit. The 
Scholastics would define one of these categories as common 
in an affirmative, the other in a privative sense. This dis- 
tinction is not only familiar to jurists, but it also expresses 
the popular belief. In Athenaeus for instance the host is 
made to say that the sea is the common property of all, but 
that fish are the private property of him who catches them. 
And in Plautus’ Rudens when the slave says: ” ‘ The sea is 
certainly common to all persons’, the fisherman agrees; but 
when the slave adds: ‘ Then what is found in the common 
sea is common property ’, he rightly objects, saying: ‘ But 
what my net and hooks have taken, is absolutely my own’. 

1Institutes II, 1, 1 and 5; Digest I, 8, 1, 2, 10; XLI, 1, 14 and 50; XLVII, 


10, 18; XLIII, 8, 3, and 4-7. 
Act IV, Scene 3 (975, 977, 985). 


30 MARE LIBERVM 


Mare igitur proprium omnino alicuius fieri non potest, 
quia natura commune hoc esse non permittit, sed iubet, 
immo ne litus quidem;* nisi quod haec addenda est inter- 
pretatio; ut si quid earum rerum per naturam occupari 
possit, id eatenus occupantis fiat, quatenus ea occupatione 
usus ille promiscuus non laeditur. Quod merito receptum 
est; nam cum ita se habet, cessat utraque exceptio per quam 
evenisse diximus, ne omnia in elus proprium trans- 
criberentur. 

Quoniam igitur inaedificatio species est occupationis, in 
litore licet aedificare, si id fieri potest sine ceterorum incom- 
modo,’ ut Pomponius loquitur, quod ex Scaevola explica- 
bimus, nisi usus publicus, hoc est communis impediretur. 
Et qui aedificaverit, soli dominus fiet, quia id solum nec 
ullius proprium, nec ad usum communem necessarium fuit. 
Hist igitur occupantis; sed non diutius quam durat occupatio, 
quia reluctari mare possessioni videtur, exemplo ferae, quae 
si in naturalem se libertatem receperit, non ultra captoris 
est, ita et litus postliminio mari cedit. 

Quicquid autem privatum fieri occupando, idem et pub- 
licum, hoc est populi proprium posse ostendimus.° Sic litus 
Imperi Romani finibus inclusum, populi Romani esse Celsus 


2 Donellus IV, 2. 


* Digest XXXIX, 2, 24 (De damno infecto, L. Fluminum); other references 
same as note 1, page 29. 
® Donellus IV, 2 et 9; also references in note 1, page 29. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 30 


Therefore the sea can in no way become the private 
property of any one, because nature not only allows but 
enjoins its common use.’ Neither can the shore become the 
private property of any one. The following qualification, 
however, must be made. If any part of these things is by 
nature susceptible of occupation, it may become the prop- 
erty of the one who occupies it only so far as such occupa- 
tion does not affect its common use. This qualification is 
deservedly recognized. For in such a case both conditions 
vanish through which it might eventuate, as we have said, 
that all of it would pass into private ownership. 

Since therefore, to cite Pomponius, building is one kind 
of occupation, it is permissible to build upon the shore, if 
this can be done without inconvenience to other people; ’ that 
is to say (I here follow Scaevola) if such building can be 
done without hindrance to public or common use of the 
shore. And whoever shall have constructed a_ building 
under the aforesaid circumstances will become the owner of 
the ground upon which said building is; because this ground 
is neither the property of any one else, nor is it necessary 
to common use. It becomes therefore the property of the 
occupier, but his ownership lasts no longer than his occupa- 
tion lasts, inasmuch as the sea seems by nature to resist 
ownership. For just as a wild animal, if it shall have 
escaped and thus recovered its natural liberty, is no longer 
the property of its captor, so also the sea may recover 
its possession of the shore. 

We have now shown that whatever by occupation can 
become private property can also become public property, 
that is, the private property of a whole nation.’ And so 
Celsus considered the shore included within the limits of 
the Roman Empire to be the property of the Roman people. 


4Donellus IV, 2. 
* Digest XX XIX, 2, 24; other references same as note 1, page 29. 
2 Donellus IV, 2 and 9; also references in note 1, page 29. 


31 MARE LIBERVM 


existimat; quod si ita est, minime mirandum est, eundem 
Populum subditis suis occupandi litoris modum per Prin- 
cipem aut Praetorem potuisse concedere. Ceterum et haec 
occupatio non minus quam privata ita restrmgenda est, ne 
ulterius porrigatur, quam ut salvus sit usus Lurisgentium. 
Nemo igitur potest a Populo Romano* ad litus maris 
accedere prohiberi, et retia siccare, et alia facere, quae semel 
omnes homines in perpetuum sibi licere voluerunt. 


Maris autem natura hoc differt a litore, quod mare nisi 
exigua sui parte nec inaedificari facile, nec includi potest; 
et ut posset, hoc ipsum tamen vix contingeret, sine usus 
promiscui impedimento. Si quid tamen exiguum ita occu- 
pari potest, id occupanti conceditur. Hyperbole est igitur ’? 


Contracta pisces aequora sentiunt 
Lactis in altum molibus. 


Nam Celsus iactas in mare pilas eius esse dicit qui iecerit.° 
Sed id non concedendum si deterior maris usus eo modo 
futurus sit. Et Vlpianus eum qui molem in mare iacit, ita 
tuendum dicit si nemo damnum sentiat. Nam si cui haec 
res nocitura sit, interdictum utique, ‘ Ne quid in loco publico 
fiat’ competiturum. Vt et Labeo, si quid tale in mare 
struatur, interdictum vult competere, ‘ Ne quid in mari, quo 
portus, statio, iterve navigiis deterius sit, fiat’. * 

* Digest I, 8, 4 (De divisione rerum, L. Nemo igitur); XLIII, 8, 3 (Ne quid 
in loco publico, L. Litora). 

? Horace, Carmina III, i, 33-34. 


* Digest XLITI, 8, 3 (as in note 1); 8, 2 (eod. tit, L. Praetor, § Adversus). 
* Digest XLIII, 12, 1 (De fluminibus, L. Ait praetor, § Si in mari). 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 31 


There is not therefore the least reason for surprise that the 
Roman people through their emperors or praetors was able 
to grant to its subjects the right of occupying the shore. 
This public occupation, however, no less than private occu- 
pation, was subject to the restriction that it should not in- 
fringe on international rights. Therefore the Roman peo- 
ple could not forbid any one from having access to the 
seashore,” and from spreading his fishing nets there to dry, 
and from doing other things which all men long ago decided — 
were always permissible. 

The nature of the sea, however, differs from that of the 
shore, because the sea, except for a very restricted space, 
can neither easily be built upon, nor inclosed; if the contrary 
were true yet this could hardly happen without hindrance to 
the general use. Nevertheless, if any small portion of the 
sea can be thus occupied, the occupation is recognized. The 
famous hyperbole of Horace must be quoted here: “ The 
fishes note the narrowing of the waters by piers of rock 
laid in their depths.” ’ 

Now Celsus holds that piles driven into the sea belong 
to the man who drove them.* But such an act is not per- 
missible if the use of the sea be thereby impaired. And 
Ulpian says that whoever builds a breakwater must be pro- 
tected if it is not prejudicial to the interests of any one; for 
if this construction is likely to work an injury to any one, 
the injunction ‘ Nothing may be built on public property ’ 
would apply. Labeo, however, holds that in case any such | 
construction should be made in the sea, the following in- 
junction is to be enforced: ‘ Nothing may be built in the | 
sea whereby the harbor, the roadstead, or the channel be 
rendered less safe for navigation ’.* 


* Digest I, 8, 4; XLIII, 8, 3. 

? Odes III, i, 33-34 [Bennett’s (Loeb) translation, page 171]. 
* Digest XLIII, 8, 3; 8, 2. 

* Digest XLITI, 12, 1. 


32 MARE LIBERVM 


Quae autem navigationis eadem piscatus habenda est 
ratio, ut communis maneat omnibus. Neque tamen peccabit 
si quis in maris diverticulo piscandi locum sibi palis circum- 
sepiat, atque ita privatum faciat; sicut Lucullus exciso apud 
Neapolim monte ad villam suam maria admisit.* Et huius 
generis, puto fuisse piscinas maritimas quarum Varro et 
Columella meminerunt. Nec Martialis alio spectavit, cum 
de Formiano Apollinaris loquitur: ” 


Si quando NEREVS sentit Aeolt regnum, 
Ridet procellas tuta de SVO mensa. — 


Kit Ambrosius: * ‘ Inducis mare intra praedia tua ne desint 
belluae’. Hine apparere potest quae mens Pauli fuerit, 
cum dicit,* si maris proprium ius ad aliquem pertineat, wtz 
possidetis interdictum ei competere. Esse quidem hoc inter- 
dictum ad privatas causas comparatum, non autem ad 
publicas, (in quibus etiam ea comprehenduntur quae 
lure gentium communi facere possumus) sed hic iam 
agi de iure fruendo quod ex causa privata contingat, 
non publica, sive communi. Nam _ teste Marciano, 
quicquid occupatum est et occupari potuit,® id iam non est 
lurisgentium, sicut est mare. Exempli causa, si quis Lucul- 
lum aut Apollinarem in privato suo, quatenus diverticulum 
maris incluserant, piscari prohibuisset, dandum illis inter- 


*Pliny, Naturalis historia IX, 54, 170. 
* Martial, Epigrammata X, 30, 19-20, 

* De Nabuthe, cap. 38. 

* Digest XLVII, 10, 14 (De iniuriis, L. Sane si maris). 

*Cf. note 1, page 31. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 32 


Now the same principle which applies to navigation 
applies also to fishing, namely, that it remains free and open 
to all. Nevertheless there shall be no prejudice if any one 
shall by fencing off with stakes an inlet of the sea make a 
fish pond for himself, and so establish a private preserve. 
Thus Lucullus once brought the water of the sea to his villa 
by cutting a tunnel through a mountain near Naples.’ I 
suspect too that the seawater reservoirs for fish mentioned 
by Varro and Columella were of this sort. And Martial 
had the same thing in mind when he says of the Formian 
villa of Apollinaris: * ‘ Whenever Nereus feels the power of 
Aeolus, the table safe in its own resources laughs at the 
gale’. Ambrose also has something to say on the same 
subject: * ‘ You bring the very sea into your estates that you 
may not lack for fish’. In the light of all this the meaning 
of Paulus is clear when he says * that if any one has a private 
right over the sea, the rule uti possidetis applies. ‘This rule 
however is applicable only to private suits, and not to public 
ones, among which are also to be included those suits which 
can be brought under the common law of nations. But 
here the question is one which concerns the right of use 
arising in a private suit, but not in a public or common 
one. For according to the authority of Marcianus what- 
ever has been occupied and can be occupied ° is no longer 
subject to the law of nations as the sea is. Let us take an 
example. If any one had prevented Lucullus or Apolli- 
naris from fishing in the private fish ponds which they had 
made by inclosing a small portion of the sea, according to 
the opinion of Paulus they would have the right of bringing 


1Pliny, Natural History IX, 54, 170. 
7Epigrams X, 30, 19-20. 

* De Nabuthe, cap. ‘3. 

‘Digest XLVII, 10, 14. 

5 See note 1, page 31. 


33 MARE LIBERVM 


dictum Paulus putavit non solum iniuriarum actionem, ob 
causam scilicet privatae possessionis.° 

Immo in diverticulo maris, sicut in diverticulo fluminis, 
si locum talem occuparim, ibique piscatus sim, maxime si 
animum privatim possidendi plurium annorum continuatione 
testatus fuerim, alterum eodem iure uti prohibebo; ut ex 
Marciano colligimus, non aliter quam in lacu qui mel 
dominii est. Quod verum quam diu durat occupatio, 
quemadmodum in litore antea diximus. Extra diverticulum 
idem non erit, ne scilicet communis usus impediatur.’ 

Ante aedes igitur meas aut praetorium ut piscari aliquem 
prohibeant usurpatum quidem est, sed nullo iure, adeo 
quidem ut Vlpianus contempta ea usurpatione si quis pro- 
hibeatur iniuriarum dicat agi posse. Hoc Imperator Leo 
(cuius Legibus non utimur) contra iuris rationem mutavit, 
voluitque zpd@upa, hoc est, vestibula maritima eorum esse 
propria, qui oram habitarent, ibique eos ius piscandi habere; * 
quod tamen ita procedere voluit, ut septis quibusdam 
remoratoriis quas ézoyas Graeci vocant, locus ille occupa- 
retur; existimans nimirum non fore ut quis exiguam maris 
portionem alteri invideret qui ipse toto mari ad piscandum 
admitteretur. Certe ut quis magnam maris partem, etiam 
si possit, publicis utilitatibus eripiat, non tolerandae est 
improbitatis, in quam merito Vir Sanctus invehitur:° 

* Digest XLIV, 3, 7 (De diversis, L. Si quisquam). 

* Digest XLI, 3, 45 (De usucapionibus, L, Praescriptio). 

* Digest XLVI, 10, 13 (De iniuriis, L, Iniuriarum, § Si quis me). 


* Novella Leonis, 102, 103, 104; cf. Cuiacium XIV, 1. 
° Hexameron V, 10, 27, 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 33 


an injunction, not merely an action for damages based on 
private ownership." — 

Indeed, if I shall have staked off such an inclosure in an 
inlet of the sea, just as in a branch of a river, and have 
fished there, especially if by doing so continuously for many 
years I shall have given proof of my intention to establish 
private ownership, I shall certainly prevent any one else 
from enjoying the same rights. I gather from Marcianus 
that this case is identical with that of the ownership of a 
lake, and it is true however long occupation lasts, as we have 
said above about the shore. But outside of an inlet this 
will not hold, for then the common use of the sea might be 
hindered.’ 

Therefore if any one is prevented from fishing in front 
of my town house or country seat, it is a usurpation, but an 
illegal one, although Ulpian, who rather makes light of this 
usurpation, does say that if any one is so prevented he can 
bring an action for damages.* The Emperor Leo, whose 
laws we do not use, contrary to the intent of the law, 
changed this, and declared that the entrances, or vestibules 
as it were, to the sea, were the private property of those who 
inhabited the shore, and that they had the right of fishing 
there.* However he attached this condition, that the place 
should be occupied by certain jetty or pile constructions, 
such as the Greeks call é¢voyai, thinking doubtless that no 
one who was himself allowed to fish anywhere in the sea 
would grudge any one else a small portion of it. To be 
sure it would be an intolerable outrage for any one to 
snatch away, even if he could do so, from public use a large 
area of the sea; an act which is justly reprehended by the 
Holy Man,° who says: ‘ The lords of the earth claim for 


* Digest XLIV, 3, 7. 

* Digest XLI, 3, 45. 

5 Digest XLVII, 10, 13. 

* Novels of Leo, 102, 103, 104; See also Cujas XIV, lI. 

* Hexameron V, 10, 27 [St. Ambrose (c. 333-397), Bishop of Milan, is meant]. 


34 MARE LIBERVM 
‘SPATIA MARIS sibi vindicant IVRE MANCIPII, 


pisciumque iura sicut vernaculorum conditione sibi servitii 
subiecta commemorant. Iste, inquit, SINVS maris meus 
est; ille alterius. Dividunt elementa sibi potentes ’, 

Est igitur Mare in numero earum rerum quae in com- 
mercio non sunt,’ hoc est, quae proprii iuris fieri non possunt. 
Vnde sequitur si proprie loquamur, nullam Maris partem 
in territorio populi alicuius posse censeri. Quod ipsum Pla- 
centinus sensisse videtur, cum dixit: Mare ita esse com- 
mune, ut in nullius dominio sit nisi solius Dei; et Ioannes 
Faber, cum mare asserit relictum in suo iure, et esse pri- 
maevo, quo omnia erant communia.’ Alioquin nihil dif- 
ferrent quae sunt omnium communia ab his quae publica 
proprie dicuntur, ut mare a flumine. Flumen populus 
occupare potuit, ut inclusum finibus suis, mare non potuit. 

Territoria autem sunt ex occupationibus populorum, ut 
privata dominia ex occupationibus singulorum. Vidit hoc 
Celsus, qui clare satis distinguit inter litora,* quae Populus 
Romanus occupare potuit, ita tamen ut usui communi non 
noceretur, et mare quod pristinam naturam retinuit. Nec 
ulla lex diversum indicat.*Quae vero leges a contrariae 


1 Donellus IV, 6. 

* Joannes Faber on Institutes II, 1 (§ Litorum); Digest XIV, 2, 9 (De Lege 
Rhodia, L. ’A£iworc). 

* Digest XLIII, 8, 3 (Ne quid in loco publico, L. Litora). 

* Digest V, 1, 9 (De iudiciis, L. Insulae); XXXIX, 4, 15 (De publicanis, 
L. Caesar) ; Gloss. on Digest I, 8, 2 (De divisione rerum, L. Quaedam) ; Institutes 
II, 1; Baldus on Quaedam (above). 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 34 


themselves a wide expanse of sea by jus mancipii, and they 
_ regard the right of fishing as a servitude over which their 
right is the same as that over their slaves. That gulf, says 
one, belongs to me, and that gulf to some one else. They 
divide the very elements among themselves, these great 
men ’! 

Therefore the sea is one of those things which is not an 
article of merchandise,” and which cannot become private 
property. Hence it follows, to speak strictly, that no part 
of the sea can be considered as the territory of any people 
whatsoever. Placentinus seems to have recognized this 
when he said: ‘ The sea is a thing so clearly common to all, 
that it cannot be the property of any one save God alone’. 
Johannes Faber * also asserts that the sea has been left swe 
yuris, and remains in the primitive condition where all things 
were common. If it were otherwise there would be no dif- 
ference between the things which are ‘common to all’, and 
those which are strictly termed ‘ public’; no difference, that 
is, between the sea and a river. A nation can take posses- 
sion of a river, as it is inclosed within their boundaries, with 
the sea, they cannot do so. 

Now, public territory arises out of the occupation of 
nations, just as private property arises out of the occupa- 
tion of individuals. This is recognized by Celsus, who has 
drawn a sharp distinction between the shores of the sea,” 
which the Roman people could occupy in such a way that 
its common use was not harmed, and the sea itself, which 
retained its primitive nature. In fact no law intimates a 
contrary view.* Such laws as are cited by writers who are of 


2 Donellus IV, 6. 

2 On Institutes II, 1; Digest XIV, 2, 9 [Johannes Faber (c. 1570-c. 1640) 
was Bishop of Vienna, and Court preacher to Emperor Ferdinand. He was 
known popularly as ‘ Malleus Haereticorum ’]. 

® Digest XLIII, 8, 3. 

‘Digest V, 1, 9; XXXIX, 4, 15; Glossators on Digest I, 8, 2; Institutes 
II, 1; Baldus on L. Quaedam, in Digest I, 8, 2. 


35 MARE LIBERVM 


sententiae auctoribus citantur, aut de insulis loquuntur, 
quas clarum est occupari potuisse, aut de portu qui non 
communis est, sed proprie publicus. 

Qui vero dicunt mare aliquod esse Imperi Romani, 
dictum suum ita interpretantur, ut dicant tus illud in mare 
ultra protectionem et iurisdictionem non procedere; quod 
illi ius a proprietate distinguunt; nec forte satis animadver- 
tunt idipsum quod Populus Romanus classes praesidio 
navigantium disponere potuit, et deprehensos in mari 
piratas punire, non ex proprio, sed ex communi lure acci- 
disse, quod et aliae liberae gentes in mari habent. Illud 
interim fatemur, potuisse inter gentes aliquas convenire, ut 
capti in maris hac vel illa parte, huius aut illius rerpublicae 
tudicium subirent, atque ita ad commoditatem distinguendae 
lurisdictionis in mari fines describi, quod ipsos quidem eam 
sibi legem ferentes obligat,* at alios populos non item; 
negue locum alicuius proprium facit, sed in personas con- 
-trahentium ius constituit. 

Quae distinctio ut naturali rationi consentanea est, ita 
Vipiani responso quodam comprobatur, qui rogatus an 
duorum praediorum maritimorum dominus, alteri eorum 
quod venderet servitutem potuisset imponere, ne inde in 
certo maris loco piscari liceret, respondet: rem quidem 
ipsam, mare scilicet, servitute nulla affici potuisse, quia per 
naturam hoc omnibus pateret, sed cum bona fides contractus 
legem venditionis servari exposceret, personas possidentium 
et in lus eorum succedentium per istam legem obligari. 

* Baldus, Quibus modis feudi amittuntur, c. In principio, 2 col.; Code XI, 


13, 1; Angelus on Digest XLVII, 10, 14 (De iniuriis, L. Sane); Digest VIII, 4, 13 
(Communia praediorum, L, Venditor fundi) et 4 (L. Caveri). 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 35 


the contrary opinion apply either to islands, which evidently 
could be occupied, or to harbors, which are not ‘ common’, 
but ‘ public’, that is, ‘ national ’. 

Now those who say that a certain sea belonged to the | 
Roman people explain their statement to mean that the 
right of the Romans did not extend beyond protection and | 
jurisdiction; this right they distinguish from ownership. | 
Perchance they do not pay sufficient attention to the fact 
that although the Roman People were able to maintain fleets 
for the protection of navigation and to punish pirates cap- 
tured on the sea, it was not done by private right, but by the 
common right which other free peoples also enjoy on the 
sea. We recognize, however, that certain peoples have 
agreed that pirates captured in this or in that part of the 
sea should come under the jurisdiction of this state or of 
that, and further that certain convenient limits of distinct 
jurisdiction have been apportioned on the sea. Now, this 
agreement does bind those who are parties to it,’ but it has 
no binding force on other nations, nor does it make the de- , 
limited area of the sea the private property of any one. | 
It merely constitutes a personal right between contracting | 
parties. 

This distinction so conformable to natural reason is also 
confirmed by a reply once made by Ulpian. Upon being 
asked whether the owner of two maritime estates could on 
selling either of them impose on it such a servitude as the 
prohibition of fishing in a particular part of the sea, he 
replied that the thing in question, evidently the sea, 
could not be subjected to a servitude, because it was by 
nature open to all persons; but that since a contract made 
in good faith demands that the condition of a sale be re- 
spected, the present possessors and those who succeed to 

1 Baldus, Quibus modis feudi amittuntur, chapter beginning In principio, 


second column; Code XI, 13, 1; Angeli on Digest XLVII, 10, 14; Digest VIII, 
4, 13 and 4, 


36 MARE LIBERVM 


Verum est loqui Iurisconsultum de praediis privatis, et lege 
privata, sed in territorio et lege populorum eadem hic est 
ratio, quia populi respectu totius generis humani privatorum 
locum obtinent. 

Similiter reditus qui in piscationes maritimas constituti 
Regalium numero censentur, non rem, hoc est mare, aut pis- 
cationem, sed personas obligant.’ Quare subditi, in quos 
legem ferendi potestas Reipublicae aut Principi ex consensu 
competit, ad onera ista compelli forte poterunt; sed exteris 
ius piscandi ubique immune esse debet, ne servitus imponatur 
mari quod servire non potest. 

Non enim maris eadem quae fluminis ratio est: * quod 
cum sit publicum, id est populi, ius etiam in eo piscandi a 
populo aut principe concedi aut locari potest, ita ut ei qui 
conduxit, etiam interdictum Veteres dederint, de loco publico 
fruendo, addita condicione si is cui locandi ius fuerit, fruen- 
dum alicui locaverit;* quae condicio in mari evenire non 
potest. Ceterum qui ipsam piscationem numerant inter 
Regalia, ne quidem illum locum quem interpretabantur satis 
inspexerunt, quod Iserniam et Alvotum non latuit. 

Demonstratum est * nec populo nec privato cuipiam ius 


*C. Quae sint Regalia, in Feudis. 

? Balbus, De praescriptionibus IV, 5; 1, q. 6, n. 4. 

* Digest XLVII, 10, 13 (De iniuriis, L. Iniuriarum, § 7%, v. conductori) ; 
XLITI, 9, 1 (De loco publico fruendo). 

*Cf. note 1. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 36 


their rights were bound to observe that condition. It is true 
that the jurist is speaking of private estates and of private 
law, but in speaking here of the territory of peoples and 
of public law the same reasoning applies, because from the 
point of view of the whole human race peoples are treated 
as individuals. 

Similarly, revenues levied on maritime fisheries are held 
to belong to the Crown, but they do not bind the sea itself 
or the fisheries, but only the persons engaged in fishing.* 
Wherefore subjects, for whom a state or a ruler is by com- 
mon consent competent to make laws, will perhaps be com- 
pelled to bear such charges, but so far as other persons are 
concerned the right of fishing ought everywhere to be 
exempt from tolls, lest a servitude be imposed upon the 
sea, which is not susceptible to a servitude. 

The case of the sea is not the same as that of a river,’ 
for as a river is the property of a nation, the right to fish 
in it can be passed or leased by the nation or by the ruler, 
in such a way (and the like is true with the ancients) that 
the lessee enjoys the operation of the injunction de loco 
publico fruendo by virtue of the clause ‘He who has the 
right to lease has leased the exclusive right of enjoyment ’.° 
Such a condition cannot arise in respect to the sea. Finally 
those who count fishing among the properties of the Crown 
have not examined carefully enough the very passage 
which they cite to prove their contention, as Isernia * and 
Alvotus 7 have noticed. 

It has therefore been demonstrated * that neither a nation | 
nor an individual can establish any right of private owner- | 


1C. Quae sint Regalia, in Feudis. 

2 Balbus, De praescriptionibus IV, 5; 1, q. 6, n. 4. 

* Digest XLVIT, 10, 13; XLIII, 9, 1. 

* See note 1. 

*[Andrea d’Isernia (c. 1480-1553), an Italian commentator, called often 
Feudistarum Patriarcha. ]} 

+ [Probably a misprint for Alvarus (Alvarez).] 


37 MARE LIBERVM 


aliquod proprium in ipsum mare (nam diverticulum excipi- 
mus) competere posse, cum occupationem nec natura, nec 
usus publici ratio permittat. uius autem rei causa 
instituta fuerat haec disputatio, ut appareret Lusitanos mare 
quo ad Indos navigatur sui iuris non fecisse. Nam utraque 
ratio quae proprietatem impedit, in hac causa est quam in 
ceteris omnibus infinito efficacior. Quod in aliis difficile 
videtur, in hac omnino fieri non potest; quod in aliis iniquum 
iudicamus, in hac summe barbarum est, atque inhumanum. 

Non de mari interiore hic agimus, quod terris undique 
infusum alicubi etiam fluminis latitudinem non excedit, de 
quo tamen satis constat locutos Romanos I[urisconsultos, cum 
nobiles illas adversus privatam avaritiam sententias edide- 
runt; de Oceano quaeritur, quem immensum, infinitum, 
rerum parentem, caelo conterminum antiquitas vocat, cuius 
perpetuo humore non fontes tantum et flumina et maria, sed 
nubes, sed ipsa quodammodo sidera pasci veteres credide- 
runt; qui denique per reciprocas aestuum vices terram hance 
humani generis sedem ambiens, neque teneri neque includi 
potest, et possidet verius quam possidetur. 

In hoc autem Oceano non de sinu aut freto, nec de omni 
quidem eo quod e litore conspici potest controversia est. 
Vindicant sibi Lusitani quicquid duos Orbes interiacet, tantis 
spatiis discretos, ut plurimis saeculis famam sui non potuerint 
transmittere. Quod si Castellanorum, qui in eadem sunt 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 37 


ship over the sea itself (I except inlets of the sea), inas- | 
much as its occupation is not permissible either by nature | 
or on grounds of public utility. The discussion of this mat- | 
ter has been taken up for this reason, namely, that it may 
be seen that the Portuguese have not established private 
ownership over the sea by which people go to the East 
Indies. For the two reasons that stand in the way of 
ownership are in this case infinitely more powerful than in 
all others. —That which in other cases seems difficult, is here 
absolutely impossible; and what in other cases we recognize 
as unjust is here most barbarous and inhuman. 

The question at issue then is not one that concerns an 
INNER SEA, one which is surrounded on all sides by the 
land and at some places does not even exceed a river in 
breadth, although it is well known that the Roman jurists 
cited such an inner sea in their famous opinions condemn- 
ing private avarice. No! the question at issue is the 
OUTER SEA, the OCEAN, that expanse of water which 
antiquity describes as the immense, the infinite, bounded 
only by the heavens, parent of all things; the ocean which 
the ancients believed was perpetually supplied with water 
not only by fountains, rivers, and seas, but by the clouds, 
and by the very stars of heaven themselves; the ocean 
which, although surrounding this earth, the home of the 
human race, with the ebb and flow of its tides, can be neither 
seized nor inclosed; nay, which rather possesses the earth 
than is by it possessed. 

Further, the question at issue does not concern a gulf | 
or a strait in this ocean, nor even all the expanse of sea 
which is visible from the shore. [But consider this!!] The 
Portuguese claim as their own the whole expanse of the sea 
which separates two parts of the world so far distant the 
one from the other, that in all the preceding centuries 
neither one has so much as heard of the other. Indeed, if 
we take into account the share of the Spaniards, whose claim 


38 MARE LIBERVM 


causa, portio accedat, parvo minus omnis Oceanus duobus 
populis mancipatus est, aliis tot gentibus ad Septentrionum 
redactis angustias; multumque decepta est Natura, quae cum 
elementum illud omnibus circumfudit, omnibus etiam suffec- 
turum credidit. In tanto mari si quis usu promiscuo solum 
sibi imperium et dicionem exciperet, tamen immodicae do- 
minationis affectator haberetur; si quis piscatu arceret alios, 
insanae cupiditatis notam non effugeret. At qui etiam 
navigatum impedit, quo nihil ipsi perit, de eo quid statuemus? 
Si quis ab igni qui totus suus est, ignem capere, lumen 
suo de lumine, alterum prohiberet, lege hunc humanae so- 
cietatis reum peragerem: quia vis ea est istius naturae: 


Vit nihilominus ipsi luceat, cwm illi accenderit.’ 


Quid ni enim quando sine detrimento suo potest, alteri 
communicet, in iis quae sunt accipienti utilia, danti non 
molesta,’ 

Haec sunt quae Philosophi* non alienis tantum, sed et 
ingratis praestari volunt. Quae vero in rebus privatis 
invidia est, eadem in re communi non potest non esse 
immanitas, improbissimum enim hoc est, quod naturae 
instituto, consensu gentium, meum non minus quam tuum 
est, id te ita intercipere, ut ne usum quidem mihi concedas, 
quo concesso nihilominus id tuum sit, quam antea fuit. 

+ Ennius: ‘ Nihilo minus ipsi lucet, cum illi accenderit’. Vahlen,? Fab. Inc. 
398 (Telephus?), 


* Cicero, De officiis I, 51. 
* Seneca, De beneficiis III, 28 [IV, 28]. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 38 


is the same as that of the Portuguese, only a little less than 
the whole ocean is found to be subject to two nations, while 
all the rest of the peoples in the world are restricted to the 
- narrow bounds of the northern seas. Nature was greatly 
deceived if when she spread the sea around all peoples she 
believed that it would also be adequate for the use of them 
all. If in a thing so vast as the sea a man were to reserve 
to himself from general use nothing more than mere sov- 
_ereignty, still he would be considered a seeker after un- 
reasonable power. If a man were to enjoin other people 
_ from fishing, he would not escape the reproach of monstrous 
greed. But the man who even prevents navigation, a thing 
which means no loss to himself, what are we to say of him? 
If any person should prevent any other person from 
taking fire from his fire or a light from his torch, I should 
accuse him of violating the law of human society, because 
that is the essence of its very nature, as Ennius has said: 


“ No less shines his, when he his friend’s hath lit.” * 


Why then, when it can be done without any prejudice 
to his own interests, will not one person share with another 
things which are useful to the recipient, and no loss to the 
giver?* ‘These are services which the ancient philosophers * 
thought ought to be rendered not only to foreigners but 
even to the ungrateful. But the same act which when 
private possessions are in question is jealousy can be nothing 
but cruelty when a common possession is in question. For 
it is most outrageous for you to appropriate a thing, which 
both by ordinance of nature and by common consent is as 
much mine as yours, so exclusively that you will not grant 
me a right of use in it which leaves it no less yours than it 


was before. 

1 [Quoted in Cicero, De officiis I, 51, and here taken from Walter Miller’s 
(Loeb) translation, page 55.] 

2 Cicero, De officiis I, 51. 

® Seneca, De beneficiis IV, 28. 


39 MARE LIBERVM 


Tum vero etiam qui alienis incumbunt, aut communia 
intercipiunt, certa quadam possessione se tuentur. Quia enim 
prima, ut diximus, occupatio res proprias fecit, idcirco imagi- 
nem quandam dominii praefert quamvis iniusta detentio. 
At Lusitani num sicuti terras solemus, sic mare illud im- 
positis praediis ita undique cinxerunt, ut in ipsorum manu 
esset quos vellent excludere? An vero tantum hoc abest, ut 
ipsi etiam, cum adversus alios populos mundum dividunt, 
non ullis limitibus aut natura, aut manu positis, sed imagi- 
naria quadam linea se tueantur? quod si recipitur et dimensio 
talis ad possidendum valet, iamdudum nobis Geometrae 
terras, Astronomi etiam caelum eriperent. 

Vbi hic igitur est ista, sine qua nulla dominia coeperunt, 
corporis ad corpus adiunctio? Nimirum apparet in nulla 
re verius dici posse, quod Doctores nostri prodiderunt,’ 
Mare cum sit incomprehensibile, non minus quam aér, 
nullius populi bonis potuisse applicari. 

Si vero ante alios navigasse, et viam quodammodo 
aperuisse, hoc vocant occupare, quid esse potest magis 
ridiculum? Nam cum nulla pars sit maris, in quam non 
aliquis primus ingressus sit, sequetur omnem navigationem 
ab aliquo esse occupatam. Ita undique excludimur. Quin 
et illi qui terrarum orbem circumvecti sunt, totum sibi 
Oceanum acquisivisse dicendi erunt. Sed nemo nescit 


* Johannes Faber on Institutes II, 1, 5 (De rerum divisione, § Litorum). 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 39 


Nevertheless, even those who lay burdens upon foreign- 


ers, or appropriate things common to all, rely upon a pos- | 


‘session which is to some extent real. For since original 
-occupation created private property, therefore detention of 
a thing, though unjust, gives an appearance of ownership. 
But have the Portuguese completely covered the ocean, as 
we are wont to do on land, by laying out estates on it in 
such a way that they have the right to exclude from that 
ocean whom they will? Not at all! On the contrary, they 
are so far from having done so, that when they divide up 
the world to the disadvantage of other nations, they cannot 
even defend their action by showing any boundaries either 
natural or artificial, but are compelled to fall back upon 
some imaginary line. Indeed, if that were a recognized 
method, and such a delimitation of boundaries were suffi- 
cient to make possession valid, our geometers long since 
‘would have got possession of the face of the earth, our 
astronomers of the very skies. 

But where in this case is that corporal possession or 
physical appropriation, without which no ownerships arise? 
There appears to be nothing truer than what our learned 
jurists have enunciated, namely,’ that since the sea is just as 
insusceptible of physical appropriation as the air, it cannot 
be attached to the possessions of any nation. 

But if the Portuguese call occupying the sea merely to 
have sailed over it before other people, and to have, as it 
were, opened the way, could anything in the world be more 
ridiculous? For, as there is no part of the sea on which 
some person has not already sailed, it will necessarily follow 
that every route of navigation is occupied by some one. 
Therefore we peoples of today are all absolutely excluded. 
Why will not those men who have circumnavigated the 
globe be justified in saying that they have acquired for 
themselves the possession of the whole ocean! But there 

* Johannes Faber on Institutes II, 1, 5. 


40 MARE LIBERVM 


navem per mare transeuntem non plus iuris, quam vestigii 
relinquere. Verum etiam quod sibi sumunt neminem ante 
ipsos eum Oceanum navigasse, id minime verum est. 
Magna enim pars eius de quo agitur maris, ambitu 
Mauritaniae, iam olim navigata est; ulterior et in orientem 
vergens victoriis Magni Alexandri lustrata est, usque in 
Arabicum sinum.* 

Olim autem hanc navigationem Gaditanis percognitam 
fuisse, multa argumento sunt. Caio Caesare Augusti filio 
in Arabico sinu res gerente signa navium ex Hispaniensibus 
naufragiis agnita. Et quod Caelius Antipater tradidit, 
vidisse se qui ex Hispania in Aethiopiam commercii gratia 
navigasset. Etiam Arabibus, si verum est, quod Cornelius 
Nepos testatus est, EKudoxum quendam sua aetate cum 
Lathyrum Regem Alexandriae fugeret, Arabico sinu egres- 
sum Gades usque pervectum. Poenos autem, qui re 
maritima plurimum valuerunt, eum Oceanum non ignorasse 
longe clarissimum est, cum Hanno Carthaginis potentia 
florente circumvectus a Gadibus ad finem Arabiae, praeter- 
navigato scilicet promontorio quod nunc Bonae Spei dicitur, 
(vetus videtur nomen Hesperion ceras fuisse) omne id iter, 
situmque litoris et insularum scripto complexus sit, testa- 
tusque ad ultimum non mare sibi, sed commeatum defuisse. 

Ab Arabico autem sinu ad Indiam, Indicique Oceani 
insulas, et auream usque Chersonesum, quam esse Iapanem 
credunt plerique, etiam re Romana florente navigari 
solitum, iter a Plinio descriptum,’ legationes ab Indis ad 


* Pliny, Naturalis historia II, 69; VI, 27 [(31) Vol. 1, pp. 482-488 Mayhoff] ; 
Pomponius Mela, De situ orbis III. 
* Pliny, Naturalis historia VI, 20 (23). 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 4.0 


is not a single person in the world who does not know that 
a ship sailing through the sea leaves behind it no more 
legal right than it does a track. And as for the assumption | 
of the Portuguese that no one has sailed that ocean before. 
themselves, that is anything but true. For a great part of 
that sea near Morocco, which is in dispute, had already been > 
navigated long before, and the sea as far east as the Arabian © 
gulf has been made famous by the victories of Alexander 
the Great, as both Pliny and Mela tell us.’ 

There is also much to substantiate the belief that the 
inhabitants of Cadiz were well acquainted long ago with 
this route, because when Gaius Caesar,* the son of Augustus, 
held command in the Arabian gulf, pieces were found of 
shipwrecks recognized as Spanish. Caelius Antipater also 
has told us in his writings that he himself saw a Spaniard 
who had sailed from Spain to Ethiopia on a commercial 
voyage. Also the Arabians knew those seas, if the testi- 
mony of Cornelius Nepos is to be believed, because he says 
that in his own day a certain Eudoxus, fleeing from Lathyrus, 
king of Alexandria, sailed from the Arabian gulf and 
finally reached Cadiz. However, by far the most famous 
example is that of the Carthaginians. Those most famous 
mariners were well acquainted with that sea, because Hanno, 
when Carthage was at the height of her power, sailing from 
Cadiz to the farthest confines of Arabia, and doubling the 
promontory now known as the Cape of Good Hope (the 
ancient name seems to have been Hesperion Ceras), de- 
scribed in a book the entire route he had taken, the appear- 
ance of the coasts, and the location of the islands, declaring 
that at the farthest point he reached the sea had not yet 
given out but his provisions had. 

Pliny’s description of the route to the Kast,’ the em- 


1 Pliny, Natural History II, 69; VI, 27; Pomponius Mela, De situ orbis III. 
2 Natural History VI, 20. 
* [Strictly speaking, Gaius was the grandson of Augustus, but was adopted 


as his son.] 


41 MARE LIBERVM 


Augustum, ad Claudium etiam ex Taprobane insula, deinde 
gesta Traiani et tabulae Ptolemaei satis ostendunt. Iam 
suo tempore Strabo* Alexandrinorum mercatorum classem 
ex Arabico sinu, ut Aethiopiae ultima, ita et Indiae, petiisse 
testatur, cum olim paucis navibus id auderetur. Inde magna 
populo Romano vectigalia; addit Plinius’ impositis sagit- 
tariorum cohortibus piratarum metu navigatum; solamque 
Indiam quingenties sestertium, si Arabiam addas et Seres, 
millies annis omnibus Romano Imperio ademisse; et merces 
centuplicato venditas. 

Et haec quidem vetera satis arguunt primos non fuisse 
Lusitanos. In singulis autem sui partibus Oceanus ille et 
tune cum eum Lusitani ingressi sunt, et numquam non 
cognitus fuit. Mauri enim, Aethiopes, Arabes, Persae, Indi, 
eam maris partem cuius ipsi accolae sunt, nescire neutiquam 
potuerunt. 

Mentiuntur ergo qui se mare illud invenisse iactant. 

Quid igitur, dicet aliquis, parumne videtur, quod Lusi- 
tani intermissam multis forte saeculis navigationem primi 
repararunt, et, quod negari non potest, Europaeis gentibus 
ignotam ostenderunt, magno suo labore, sumptu, periculo? 


* Geographica II et XVII. 
* Pliny, Naturalis historia XII, 19 [VI, 23]. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 41 


bassies from the Indies to Augustus, and those from Ceylon 
to the emperor Claudius, and finally the accounts of the 
deeds of Trajan, and the writings of Ptolemaeus, all make 
it quite clear that in the days of Rome’s greatest splendor 
voyages were made regularly from the Arabian gulf to 
India, to the islands of the Indian ocean, and even so far as 
to the golden Chersonesus, which many people think was 
Japan. Strabo says* that in his own time a fleet of Alex- 
andrian merchantmen set sail from the Arabian gulf for 
the distant lands of Ethiopia and India, although few ships 
had ever before attempted that voyage. The Roman people 
had a large revenue from the East. Pliny says’ that cohorts 
of archers were carried on the boats engaged in trade as 
protection against pirates; he states also that every year 
500,000 sesterces * were taken out of the Roman empire by 
India alone, or 1,000,000 sesterces if you add Arabia and 
China; further, that merchandise brought from the East 
sold for one hundred times its original cost. 

These examples cited from ancient times are sufficient 
proof that the Portuguese were not the first in that part 
of the world. Long before they ever came, every single 
part of that ocean had been long since explored. For how 
possibly could the Moors, the Ethiopians, the Arabians, the 
Persians, the peoples of India, have remained in ignorance 
of that part of the sea adjacent to their coasts! 

Therefore they lie, who today boast that they discovered 
that sea. 

Well then, some one will say, does it seem to be a matter 


of little moment that the Portuguese were the first to re- 3 


store a navigation interrupted perhaps for many centuries, | 
and unknown—as cannot be denied—at least to the nations | 


of Europe, at great labor and cost and danger to them- | 


*Geography II and XVII. 
2\Natural History VI, 23. 
*[A Roman sestertius was about four cents.] 


4.2 MARE LIBERVM 


Immo vero si in hoc incubuerunt ut quod soli reperissent 
id omnibus monstrarent, quis adeo est amens, qui non 
plurimum se illis debere profiteatur? Handem enim gra- 
tiam, laudemque et gloriam immortalem illi promeruerint, 
qua omnes contenti fuerunt rerum magnarum inventores, 
quotquot scilicet non sibi, sed humano generi prodesse stu- 
duerunt. Sin Lusitanis suus ante oculos quaestus fuit, 
lucrum quod semper maximum est in praevertendis nego- 
tiationibus, illis sufficere debuit. Et scimus itinera prima 
proventus interdum quater decuplos, aut etiam uberiores 
dedisse, quibus factum ut inops diu populus ad repentinas 
divitias subito prorumperet, tanto luxus apparatu, quantus 
vix beatissimis gentibus in supremo progressae diu fortunae 
fastigio fuit. 

Si vero eidem in hoc praeiverunt, ne quisquam sequere- 
tur, gratiam non merentur, cum lucrum suum respexerint; 
lucrum autem suum dicere non possunt, cum eripiant 
alienum. Neque enim illud certum est nisi ivissent eo 
Lusitani, iturum fuisse neminem. Adventabant enim 
tempora, quibus ut artes paene omnes, ita et terrarum et 
marium situs clarius in dies noscebantur. Excitassent 
vetera, quae modo retulimus, exempla, et si non uno impetu 
omnia patuissent, at paulatim promota velis fuissent litora 
alio semper aliud monstrante. Factum denique fuisset, 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 42 


selves? On the contrary, if they had laid weight upon the 
fact that they were pointing out to all what they alone 
had rediscovered, there is no one so lacking in sense that he 
would not acknowledge the greatest obligation to them. 
For the Portuguese will have earned the same thanks, 
praise, and immortal glory with which all discoverers of 
great things have been content, whenever they have striven 
to benefit not themselves but the whole human race. But 
if the Portuguese had before their eyes only their own 
financial gain, surely their profit, which is always the largest . 
for those first in a new field of enterprise, ought to have 
satisfied them. For we know that their first voyages re- 
turned a profit sometimes of forty times the original in- 
vestment, and sometimes even more. And by this overseas 
trade it has come about that a people, previously for a long 
time poor, have leaped suddenly into the possession of great 
riches, and have surrounded themselves with such outward 
signs of luxurious magnificence as scarcely the most pros- 
perous nations have been able to display at the height of 
their fortunes. 

But if these Portuguese have led the way in this matter 
in order that no one may follow them, then they do not de- 
serve any thanks, inasmuch as they have considered only 
their own profit. Nor can they call it their profit, because 
they are taking the profit of some one else. For it is not at 
all demonstrable that, if the Portuguese had not gone to 
the East Indies, no one else would have gone. For the 
times were coming on apace in which along with other 
sciences the geographical locations of seas and lands were 
being better known every day. The reports of the expedi-' 
tions of the ancients mentioned above had aroused people, 
and even if all foreign shores had not been laid open at a 
single stroke as it were, yet they would have been brought 
to light gradually by sailing voyages, each new discovery 
pointing the way to the next. And so there would finally 


43 MARE LIBERVM 


quod fieri potuisse Lusitani docuerunt, cum multi essent 
populi non minus flagrantes mercaturae et rerum externa- 
rum studio. Venetis qui multa iam Indiae didicerant, cetera 
inquirere promptum fuit. Gallorum Brittonum indefessa 
sedulitas, Anglorum audacia coepto non defuisset. Ipsi 
Batavi multo magis desperata aggressi sunt. 

Nulla igitur aequitatis ratio, ne probabilis quidem ulla 
sententia a Lusitanis stat. Omnes enim qui mare volunt 
imperio alicuius subici posse, id ei attribuunt qui proximos 
portus et circumiacentia litora in dicione habet.* At Lusitani 
in illo inmmenso litorum tractu paucis exceptis praesidiis nihil 
habent quod suum possint dicere. 

Deinde vero etiam qui Mari imperaret, nihil tamen posset 
ex usu communi deminuere, sicut Populus Romanus arcere 
neminem potuit, quo minus in litore imperi Romani cuncta 
faceret, quae iure gentium permittebantur.’ Et si quicquam 
eorum prohibere posset, puta piscaturam qua dici quodam- 
modo potest pisces exhauriri, at navigationem non posset, 
per quam mari nihil perit. 

Cui rei argumentum est longe certissimum, quod ex 
Doctorum sententia ante retulimus, etiam in terra, quae cum 
populis, tum hominibus singulis in proprietatem attributa 
est, iter tamen, certe inerme et innoxium, nullius gentis 

*Gloss. on Lib. VI, I, 6, 3 (De electione, c. Ubi periculum, § Porro); on 


Digest II, 12, 3 (De feriis, L. Solet [Grotius has Licet]). 


* Digest I, 8, 4 (De divisione rerum, L. Nemo igitur); Gentilis, De jure 
belli I, 19, 


2 i 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 43 


_ have been accomplished what the Portuguese showed could 
_ be done, because there were many nations with no less ardor 
_ than theirs to engage in commerce and to learn of foreign 


things. The Venetians, who already knew much about 
India, were ready to push their knowledge farther; the in- 
defatigable zeal of the French of Brittany, and the boldness 
of the English would not have failed to make such an at- 
tempt; indeed the Dutch themselves have embarked upon 
much more desperate enterprises. 

Therefore the Portuguese have neither just reason nor 
respectable authority to support their position, for all those 
persons who assume that the sea can be subjected to the 
sovereignty of any one assign it to him who holds in his 
power the nearest ports and the circumjacent shores.* But 
in all that great extent of coast line reaching to the East 
Indies the Portuguese have nothing which they can call 
their own except a few fortified posts. 

And then even if a man were to have dominion over the 
sea, still he could not take away anything from its common 
use, just as the Roman people could not prevent any one 


_from doing on the shores of their dominions all those things 


which were permitted by the law of nations.” And if it were 
possible to prohibit any of those things, say for example, 
fishing, for in a way it can be maintained that fish are ex- 
haustible, still it would not be possible to prohibit naviga- 


tion, for the sea is not exhausted by that use. 


The most conclusive argument on this question by far 
however is the one that we have already brought forward 
based on the opinions of eminent jurists, namely, that even 
over land which had been converted into private property 
either by states or individuals, unarmed and innocent pas- 
sage is not justly to be denied to persons of any country, 
exactly as the right to drink from a river is not to be 


1Glossators on Lib. VI, I, 6, 3; on Digest II, 12, 3. 
? Digest I, 8, 4; Gentilis, De jure belli I, 19. 


44 MARE LIBERVM 


hominibus iuste negari; sicut et potum ex flumine. Ratio 
apparet, quia cum unius rei naturaliter usus essent diversi, 
eum dumtaxat gentes divisisse inter se videntur, qui sine 
proprietate commode haberi non potest, contra autem eum 
recepisse, per quem domini condicio deterior non esset futura. 

Omnes igitur vident eum qui alterum navigare prohibeat 
nullo iure defendi, cum eundem etiam iniuriarum teneri 
Vipianus dixerit;* alii autem etiam interdictum utile pro- 
hibito competere existimaverint.’ 

Et sic Batavorum intentio communi iure nititur, cum 
fateantur omnes, permissum cuilibet in mari navigare etiam 
a nullo Principe impetrata licentia; quod Legibus Hispanicis 
diserte expressum est.’ 

* Digest XLIII, 8, 2 (Ne quid in loco publico, L. Praetor ait, § Si quis in 
mari). 

* Gloss. on Digest XLIII, 14 (Ut in flumine publico). 


* Baldus on Digest I, 8, 3 (De divisione rerum, L. Item lapilli); Zuarius, 
Consilia duo de usu maris I, 3, part. tit. 28, L. 10 et 12. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 4A 


denied. ‘The reason is clear, because, inasmuch as one and 
the same thing is susceptible by nature to different uses, the 
nations seem on the one hand to have apportioned among 
themselves that use which cannot be maintained con- 
veniently apart from private ownership; but on the other 
hand to have reserved that use through the exercise of which 
the condition of the owner would not be impaired. 

It is clear therefore to every one that he who prevents | 
another from navigating the sea has no support in law. | 
Ulpian has said * that he was even bound to pay damages, 
and other jurists have thought that the injunction utile 
prolibito could also be brought against him.’ 

Finally, the relief prayed for by the Dutch rests upon a 
common right, since it is universally admitted that naviga- 
tion on the sea is open to any one, even if permission is not 
obtained from any ruler. And this is specificially expressed 
in the Spanish laws.’ 


1 Digest XLITI, 8, 2. 

?Glossators on Digest XLIII, 14. 

® Baldus on Digest I, 8, 3; Zuarius, Consilia duo de usu maris I, 3, 28, L. 10 
and 12. [Rodericus Zuarius, Consilia published in 1621]. 


CAPVT VI 


Mare aut ius navigandi proprium non esse 
Lusitanorum titulo donationis 
Pontificiae 


Donatio Pontificis Alexandri, quae a Lusitanis mare aut 
ius navigandi solis sibi vindicantibus, cum inventionis 
deficiat titulus, secundo loco adduci potest, satis ex lls quae 
ante dicta sunt vanitatis convincitur. Donatio enim nullum 
habet momentum in rebus extra commercium positis. Quare 
cum mare aut ius in eo navigandi proprium nulli hominum 
esse possit, sequitur neque dari a Pontifice neque a Lusitanis 
accipi potuisse. Praeterea cum supra relatum sit ex omnium 
sani iudicii hominum sententia Papam non esse dominum 
temporalem totius orbis, ne Maris quidem esse satis intelli- 
gitur; quamquam etsi id concederetur, tamen ius annexum 
Pontificatui in Regem aliquem aut populum pro parte nulla 
transferri debuisset. Sicut nec Imperator posset Imperi 
provincias in suos usus convertere, aut pro suo arbitrio 
alienare.* 

Illud saltem nemo negaturus est, cui aliquid sit frontis, 
cum ius disponendi in temporalibus Pontifici nemo concedat, 
nisi forte quantum eius rerum spiritualium necessitas requi- 
rit, ista autem de quibus nunc agimus, mare scilicet et ius 
navigandi, lucrum et quaestum merum, non pietatis negotium 


* Victoria, De Indis I (II?), n. 26. 


45 


eo 


CHAPTER VI 


Neither the Sea nor the right of navigation thereon belongs 
to the Portuguese by virtue of title based on the 
Papal Donation 


The Donation of Pope Alexander, inasmuch as the title 


based on discovery is seen to be deficient, may next be in- 


voked by the Portuguese to justify their exclusive appro- 
priation of the sea and the right of navigation thereon. But 
from what has been said above, that Donation is clearly 
convicted of being an act of empty ostentation. For a 
Donation has no effect on things outside the realm of trade. 
Wherefore since neither the sea nor the right of navigating 
it can become the private property of any man, it follows 
that it could not have been given by the Pope, nor accepted 
by the Portuguese. Besides, as has been mentioned above, 
following the opinion of all men of sound judgment, it is 
sufficiently well recognized that the Pope is not the tem- 
poral lord of the earth, and certainly not of the sea. Even 
if it be granted for the sake of argument that such were 
the case, still a right attaching to the Pontificate ought not 
to be transferred wholly or in part to any king or nation. 
Similarly no emperor could convert to his own uses or 
alienate at his own pleasure the provinces of his empire.’ 

Now, inasmuch as no one concedes to the Pope in tem- 
poral matters a jus disponendi, except perhaps in so far as 
it is demanded by the necessity of spiritual matters, and 
inasmuch as the things now under discussion, namely, the 
sea and the right of navigating it, are concerned only with 
money and profits, not with piety, surely no one can have 


1 Victoria, De Indis I, n. 26. 
45 


46 MARE LIBERVM 


respiciant, sequi nullam hac in re fuisse illius potestatem. 
Quid, quod ne Principes quidem, hoc est, domini temporales 
possunt ullo modo a navigatione aliquem prohibere, cum si 
quod habent ius in mari id sit tantum iurisdictionis ac pro- 
tectionis? Etiam illud notissimum est apud omnes, ad ea 
facienda quae cum lege Naturae pugnant, nullam esse Papae 
auctoritatem.* Pugnat autem cum lege Naturae, ut mare 
aut elus usum quisquam habeat sibi proprium, ut iam satis 
demonstravimus. Cum denique ius suum auferre alicui Papa 
minime possit, quae erit facti istius defensio, si tot populos 
immerentes, indemnatos, innoxios ab eo iure quod ad ipsos 
non minus quam ad Hispanos pertinebat uno verbo voluit ex- 
cludere? 

Aut igitur dicendum est nullam esse vim eiusmodi pro- 
nuntiationis, aut quod non minus credibile est, eum Ponti- 
ficis animum fuisse, ut Castellanorum et Lusitanorum inter 
se certamini intercessum voluerit, aliorum autem iuri nihil 
diminutum. 


* Silvestris, In verbo Papa. n. 16, 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 4.6 


‘the face to insist that the Pope had any jurisdiction here. 
What of the fact that not even rulers, that is to say, 
temporal lords, can prohibit any one from navigation, since 
if they have any right at all upon the sea it is merely one of 
jurisdiction and protection! It is also a fact universally 
recognized that the Pope has no authority to commit acts 
repugnant to the law of nature.* But it is repugnant to 
the law of nature, as we have already proved beyond a 
doubt, for any one to have as his own private property 
either the sea or its use. Finally, since the Pope is wholly 
unable to deprive any one of his own rights, what defense 
will there be for that Donation of his, if by a word he in- 
tended to exclude so many innocent, uncondemned, and 
guiltless nations from a right which belongs no less to them 
than to the Spaniards? 

Therefore, either it must be affirmed that a pronuncia- | 
“mento of this sort has no force, or, as is no less credible, that 
‘it was the desire of the Pope to intercede in the quarrel 
between the Spaniards and the Portuguese, and that he had 
no concomitant intention of violating the rights of others. 


4 Silvestris, In verbo Papa. n. 16. 


CAPVT VII 


Mare aut ius navigandi proprium non esse 
Lusitanorum titulo praescriptionis 
aut consuetudims 


Vitimum iniquitatis patrocinium in praescriptione solet 
esse aut consuetudine. Et huc igitur Lusitani se conferunt; 
sed utrumque illis praesidium certissima iuris ratio prae- 
cludit. Nam praescriptio a iure est civili, unde locum habere 
non potest inter reges, aut inter populos liberos;* multo— 
autem minus ubi ius naturae aut gentium resistit, quod 1ure 
civili semper validius est. Quin et ipsa lex civilis praescrip- 
tionem hic impedit.? Vsucapi enim, aut praescriptione 
acquiri prohibentur, quae in bonis esse non possunt, deinde 
quae possideri vel quasi possideri nequeunt, et quorum 
alienatio prohibita est. Haec autem omnia de mari et usu 
maris vere dicuntur. 

Et cum publicae res, hoe est populi alicuius nulla tem- 
poris possessione quaeri posse dicantur, sive ob rei naturam, 
sive ob eorum privilegium adversus quos praescriptio ista 
procederet, quanto iustius humano generi, quam uni populo 
id beneficium dandum fuit in rebus communibus? Et hoc est 


* Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 51. 

* Donellus, V, 22 et seq.; Digest XVIII, 1, 6 (De contrahenda emptione, L. 
Sed Celsus); XLI, 3, 9 (De usucapionibus, L. Usucapionem), 25 (L. Sine); 
Lib. VI, V, 12 (De regulis iuris, Reg. Sine possessione); Digest L, 16, 28 (De 
verborum significatione, L, ‘ Alienationis’); XXIII, 5, 16 (De fundo dotali, L. 
Si fundum). 


47 


_ CHAPTER VII 


Neither the Sea nor the right of navigation thereon belongs 
to the Portuguese by title of prescription or 
custom 


The last defense of injustice is usually a claim or plea 
based on prescription or on custom, ‘To this defense there- | 

* fore the Portuguese have resorted. But the best established | 
reasoning of the law precludes them from enjoying the 
_ protection of either plea. 
Prescription is a matter of municipal law; hence it can- 
not be applied as between kings, or as between free and 
independent nations.* It has even less standing when it is 
in conflict with that which is always stronger than the 
municipal law, namely, the law of nature or nations. Nay, 
even municipal law itself prevents prescription in this case.” 
For it is impossible to acquire by usucaption or prescription 
things which cannot become property, that is, which are not 
susceptible of possession or of quasi-possession, and which 
cannot be alienated. AIl of which is true with respect to the 
sea and its use. | 

And since public things, that is, things which are the 
property of a nation, cannot be acquired by mere efflux 
of time, either because of their nature, or because of the 
prerogatives of those against whom such prescription would 
act, is it not vastly more just that the benefits accruing from 
the enjoyment of common things should be given to the 
entire human race than to one nation alone? On this point 

* Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 51. 

2 Donellus, V. 22 ff.; Digest XVIII, 1, 6; XLI, 3, 9, 25; Lib. VI, V, 12 
(Reg. Sine possessione); Digest L, 16, 28; XXIII, 5, 16. 

47 


48 MARE LIBERVM 


quod Papinianus scriptum reliquit,* ‘ praescriptionem longae 
possessionis ad obtinenda loca iurisgentium publica concedi 
non solere ’; eiusque rei exemplum dat in litore, cuius pars 
imposito aedificio occupata fuerat. Nam eo diruto, et 
alterius aedificio in eodem loco postea exstructo, exceptionem 
opponi non posse; quod deinde similitudine rei publicae illus- 
trat, nam et si quis in fluminis diverticulo pluribus annis 
piscatus sit, postea, interrupta scilicet piscatione, alterum 
eodem iure prohibere non posse. 

Apparet igitur Angelum et qui cum Angelo dixerunt’* 
Venetis et Genuensibus per praescriptionem ius aliquod in 
sinum maris suo litori praeiacentem acquiri potuisse, aut 
falli, aut fallere, quod sane Lurisconsultis nimium est fre- 
quens, cum sanctae professionis auctoritatem, non ad 
rationes et leges, sed ad gratiam conferunt potentiorum. 
Nam Martiani quidem responsum, de quo et ante egimus, 
si recte cum Papiniani verbis comparetur,’ non aliam accipere 
potest interpretationem, quam eam quae et Iohanni olim et 
Bartolo probata est, et nunc a doctis omnibus recipitur: * ut 
scilicet ius prohibendi procedat quamdiu durat occupatio, 

1 Digest XLI, 3, 45 (De usucapionibus) ; Code VIII, 11, 6 (De operis publicis, 
L. Praescriptio); XI, 43, 9 (De aquaeductu, L. Diligenter); Digest XLIII, 11, 2 
(De via publica, L. Viam); XLI, 3, 49 (De usucapionibus, L. ult.). 


* Consilia 286; Thema tale est: inter caetera capitula pacis. 

* Digest XLIV, 3, 7 (De diversis temporalibus praescriptionibus, L. Si 
quisquam). 

* Duarenus, De usucapionibus, c. 3; Cuiacius on Digest XLI, 3, 49 (De 
usucapionibus, L. ult.); Donellus V, 22 on Digest XLI, 1, 14 (De adquirendo 
rerum dominio, L. Quod in litore). 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 48 


Papinian has said: * ‘ Prescription raised by long possession 
is not customarily recognized as valid in the acquisition of 
places known to international law as “ public” ’. As an ex- 
ample, to illustrate this point, he cites a shore some part of 
which had been occupied by means of a building constructed 
on it. But if this building should be destroyed, and some 
one else later should construct a building on the same spot, 
no exception could be taken to it. Then he illustrates the 
same point by the analogous case of a res publica. If, for 
example, any one has fished for many years in a branch of 
a river, and has then stopped fishing there, after that he 
cannot prevent any one else from enjoying the same right 
that he had. 

Wherefore it appears that Angeli’ and his followers who 
have said that the Venetians and Genoese were able to ac- 
quire by prescription certain specific rights in the gulfs of 
the sea adjacent to their shores, either are mistaken, or are 
deceiving others; a thing which happens all too frequently 
with jurists when they exercise the authority of their sacred 
profession not for justice and law, but in order to gain 
the gratitude of the powerful. There is also an opinion 
of Marcianus, already cited above in another connection, 
which, when carefully compared with the words of Papinian,’ | 
ean have no other interpretation than the one formerly 
adopted by Johannes and Bartolus,* and now accepted by 
all learned men,* namely, that the jus prohibendz is in effect | 
only while occupation lasts; it loses its force if occupation 

1 Digest XLI, 3, 45; Code VIII, 11, 6; XI, 43, 9; Digest KLIJI, 11, 2; 
XLI, 3, 49. 

2 Consilia 286 [Angelus Aretinus a Gambellionibus (?-1445), a voluminous 
commentator on the Digest and the Institutes]. 

* Digest XLIV, 3, 7. 

Duren, De usucapionibus, c. 3; Cujas on Digest XLI, 3, 49; Donellus 
V, 22 on Digest XLI, 1, 14. 

*[Bartolus de Saxoferrato (1314-1357) the most famous of the Post-glos- 


sators, was called by many of his biographers ‘Optimus auriga in hac civili 
sapientia ’.] 


49 MARE LIBERVM 


non autem si ea omissa sit; omissa enim non prodest, nec si 
per mille annos fuisset continuata, ut recte animadvertit 
Castrensis. Et quamvis hoc voluisset Martianus, quod 


minime credendus est cogitasse, in quo loco occupatio con- | 


ceditur, in eodem praescriptionem concedi, tamen absurdum 
erat quod de flumine publico dictum erat ad Mare commune, 
et quod de diverticulo ad sinum proferre, cum haec prae- 
scriptio usum qui est Iuregentium communis, impeditura 
sit, illa autem publico usui non admodum noceat. Alterum 
autem Angeli argumentum quod ex aquaeductu sumitur,’ 
eodem Castrensi monstrante, ut a quaestione alienissimum, 
ab omnibus merito exploditur. 

Falsum igitur est talem praescriptionem etiam eo tem- 


pore gigni, cuius initium omnem memoriam excedat. Vbi 


enim lex omnem omnino tollit praescriptionem, ne istud 


quidem tempus admittitur, hoc est, ut Felinus loquitur,* ma- 
teria impraescriptibilis tempore immemoriali non fit prae- 
scriptibilis. Fatetur haec vera esse Balbus;* sed Angeli 
sententiam receptam dicit hac ratione, quia tempus extra 
memoriam positum idem valere creditur privilegio, cum 
titulus amplissimus ex tali tempore praesumatur. Apparet 
hine non aliud illos sensisse, quam si pars aliqua reipublicae, 
puta Imperi Romani, supra omnem memoriam usa esset tali 
iure, ei dandam praescriptionem hoc colore, quasi Principis 


* Code XI, 43, 4 (De aquaeductu, L. Usum aquae); cf. eod. tit., L. Diligenter; 
cf. Digest XLIII, 20, 3 (De aqua cottidiana et aestiva, L. Hoc iure, § Ductus 
aquae). 

*On Decretales Gregorii Papae IX, II, 26, 11 (De praescriptionibus, c. 
Accedentes). 

* De praescriptionibus IV, 5, q. 6, n. 8. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 49 


cease; and occupation once interrupted, even if it had been 
continuous for a thousand years, loses its rights, as Paul de 
Castro * justly observes. And even if Marcianus had meant 
—which certainly was not in his mind at all—that acquisition 
by prescription is to be recognized wherever occupation is 
recognized, still it would have been absurd to apply what 
had been said about a public river to the common sea, or 
what had been said about an inlet or a river branch to a 
bay, since in the latter case prescription would hinder the 
use of something common to all by the law of nations, and 
in the former case would work no great injury to public use. 
Moreover, another argument brought forward by Angeli 
based on the use of aqueducts,’ has quite properly been re- 
jected by every one, being, as de Castro pointed out, entirely 
aside from the point. 

It is not true then that such prescription rises even at a 
time beyond the period of the memory of man. For since 
the law absolutely denies all prescription, not even im- 
memorial time has any effect on the question; that is, as 
Felinus * says, things imprescriptible by nature do not be- 
come prescriptible by the mere efflux of immemorial time. 
Balbus admits the truth of these arguments,’ but says that 
the opinion of Angeli is to be accepted on the ground that 
time immemorial is believed to have the same validity as 
prerogative for setting up a title, since a perfect title is 
presumed from such efflux of time. Hence it appears that 
_ the jurists thought if some part of a state, say of the Roman 
empire for example, at a period before the memory of man 
had exercised such a right, that a title by prescription would 

*Code XI, 43, 4; cf. XI, 43, 9; ef. Digest XLIII, 20, 3. 

2 On the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX, II, 26, 11 [Felinus Maria Sandeus 
(c. 1427-1503), Bishop of Lucca]. 

® De praescriptionibus IV, 5, q. 6, n. 8 [Johannes Franciscus Balbus, a priest 
and jurisconsult at Muentz-hof]. 

*[The celebrated Italian jurist (?-1420 or 1437) of whom Cujas said: “Si 
vous n’avez pas Paul de Castro, vendez votre chemise pour Pacheter.” (Note from 
page 55 of the French translation of Grotius by de Grandpont.) ] 


50 MARE LIBERVM 


concessio praelisset. Quare cum nemo sit dominus totius 
generis humani, qui ius illud adversus homines omnes homini, 
aut populo alicui potuisset concedere, sublato illo colore, 
necesse est etiam praescriptionem interimi, Et sic ex illorum 
etiam sententia inter reges aut populos liberos prodesse 
nihil potest lapsus infiniti temporis. 

Vanissimum autem et illud est quod Angelus docuit, 
etiamsi ad dominium praescriptio proficere non potest, tamen 
dandam esse possidenti exceptionem. Nam Papinianus 
disertis verbis exceptionem negat:* et aliter non potuit sen- 
tire, cum ipsius saeculo praescriptio nihil esset aliud quam 
exceptio. Verum igitur est quod et leges Hispanicae ex- 
primunt’ in his rebus quae communi hominum usui sunt 
attributae, nullius omnino temporis praescriptionem proce- 
dere, cuius definitionis illa praeter ceteras ratio reddi potest, 
quod qui re communi utitur, ut communi uti videtur, non 
autem iure proprio, et ita praescribere non magis quam fruc- 
tuarius potest vitio possessionis.° 

Altera haec etiam non contemnenda est, quod in prae- 
scriptione temporis cuius memoria non exstat, quamvis titulus 
et bona fides praesumantur, tamen si re ipsa appareat titulum 
omnino nullum dari posse, et sic manifesta sit fides mala, 


quae in populo maxime quasi uno corpore perpetua esse 


1On Digest XLI, 3, 49 (De usucapionibus, L. ult.). 

2 Par. 3, tit. 29, 1. 7 in c. Placa.; Zuarius, Consilia, num. 4. 

* Fachinham VIII, c. 26 et c. 33; Duarenus, De praescriptionibus, parte 2, § 2, 
n. 8; § 8, n. 5 et 6. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 50 


have to be admitted on that ground, exactly as if there had 
_ been a previous grant from a Prince. But inasmuch as 
there is no one who is sovereign of the whole human race 
with competence to grant to any man or to any nation such 
a right against all other men, with the annihilation of that 
pretext, title by prescription is also necessarily destroyed. 
Therefore the opinion of the jurists is that not even an in- 
finite lapse of time is able to set up a right as between kings 
or independent nations. 

Moreover Angeli brought forward a most foolish argu- 
ment, affirming that even if prescription could not create 
ownership, still an exception ought to be made in favor of 
a possessor. Papinian however in unmistakable words says 
there is no exception,’ nor could he think otherwise, because 
in his day prescription was itself an exception. It is there- 
fore true, as expressed also in the laws of Spain,’ that pre- 
scription based on no matter how immemorial a time, sets 
up no title to those things which are recognized as common 
to the use of mankind. One reason among others which 
can be given for this definition is that any one who uses a 
res communis does so evidently by virtue of common and 
not private right, and because of the imperfect character of 
possession he can therefore no more set up a legal title by 
prescription than can a usufructuary.° 

A second reason not to be overlooked is that although a 
title and good faith are presumed in a prescriptive right 
_ created by the efflux of immemorial time, nevertheless if 
it appears from the nature of the thing itself that no title 
at all can be established, and if thus there becomes evident 
bad faith—a thing held to be permanent in a nation as well 
as in an individual—then prescription fails because of a 


7 On Digest XLI, 3, 49. 

2 Par. 3, tit. 29, 1. 7 in c. Placa.; Zuarius, Consilia, num. 4. 

® Fachinham VIII, c. 26 and c. 33; Duaren, De praescriptionibus, parte 2, § 2, 
n. 8; § 8, n. 5 and 6. [Nicholas Fachinham (?-1407), a Franciscan, who taught 
Theology at Oxford.] 


51 MARE LIBERVM 


censetur, et ex duplici defectu praescriptio corruit." Tertia 
vero, quia res haec est merae facultatis, quae non praescri- 
bitur, ut infra demonstrabimus. 

Sed nullus est finis argutiarum. Inventi sunt qui in hoc 
argumento a praescriptione consuetudinem distinguerent, ut 
illa scilicet exclusi, ad hance confugerent. Discrimen autem 
quod hic statuunt sane ridiculum est: ex praescriptione aiunt 
ius unius quod ab eo aufertur alteri applicari; * sed cum ali- 
quod ius ita alicui applicatur ut alteri non auferatur, tum 
dici consuetudinem; quasi vero cum ius navigandi quod com- 
muniter ad omnes pertinet, exclusis aliis ab uno usurpatur, 
non necesse sit omnibus perire quantum uni accedit. Errori 
huic ansam dederunt Pauli verba non recte accepta, qui cum 
de iure proprio maris ad aliquem pertinente loqueretur,* 
fier1 hoe posse dixit Accursius per privilegium aut consuetu- 
dinem: quod additamentum ad Iurisconsulti textum nullo 
modo accedens mali potius coniectoris esse videtur quam boni 
interpretis. Mens Pauli supra explicata est. Ceterum illi 
si vel sola Vlpiani verba,* quae paulo ante praecedunt, satis 
considerassent, longe aliud dicturi erant. Fatetur enim ut 
quis ante aedes meas piscari prohibeatur, esse quidem usur- 

*Fachinham VIII, c. 28. 

* Angelus Aretinus in rubr. Digest I, 8 (De divisione rerum); Balbus, 1. ¢c., 
n. 2; cf. Vasquium, Controversiae illustres c. 29, n. 38. 


* On Digest XLVII, 10, 14 (De iniuriis, L. Sane). 
* Digest XLVII, 10, 13 (De iniuriis, L. Iniuriarum, § ult.) 


j 
| 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 51 


double defect." Also a third reason is that we have under 


"consideration a merely facultative right which is not pre- 
_ seriptible, as we shall show below.* 


But there is no end to their subtilties. There are jurists 
who in this case would distinguish custom from prescription, 
so that if they are debarred from the one, they may fall 
back upon the other. But the distinction which they set up 
is most absurd. They say that the right of one person 
which is taken away from him is given to another by pre- 
scription; * but that when any right is given to any one in 
such a way that it is not taken away from any one else, 
then it is called custom. As if indeed the right of 
navigation, which is common to all, upon being usurped 
by some one to the exclusion of all others, would not 
necessarily when it became the property of one be lost 
to all! 

This error receives support from misinterpretation of 
what Paulus has to say about a private right of possession 
on the sea.* Accursius 7 said that such a right could be ac- 
quired by privilege or custom. But this addition which in 
no way agrees with the text of the jurist seems to be rather 
the interpretation of a mischievous guesser than of a faith- 
ful interpreter. The real meaning of the words of Paulus 
has been already explained. Besides, if more careful con- 
sideration had been given to the words of Ulpian* which 
almost immediately precede those of Paulus, a very differ- 


ent assertion would have been made. For Ulpian acknowl- 


edges that if any one is prohibited from fishing in front of 


2Fachinham VIII, c. 28. 

2 Angelus Aretinus on Digest I, 8; Balbus, De praescriptionibus IV, 5, q. 
6, n. 2; see Vasquius, Controversiae illustres c. 29, n. 38. 

® On Digest XLVII, 10, 14. 

* Digest XLVII, 10, 13. 

* [See chapter XI.] 

+[Franciscus (?) Accursius (?-1259) (a pupil of the famous Monarcha 
juris Azzo), with whose name the Glossa Magna is almost synonymous. He was 
called Advocatorum Idolum.] 


52 MARE LIBERVM 


patum;* hoe est receptum consuetudine, sed nullo iure, 
ideoque iniuriarum actionem prohibito non denegandam. 

Contemnit igitur hunc morem, et usurpationem vocat, ut 
et inter Christianos Doctores Ambrosius.” Et merito. Quid 
enim clarius quam non valere consuetudinem, quae iuri 
naturae, aut gentium ex adverso opponitur?* Consuetudo 
enim species est iuris positivi, quod legi perpetuae obrogare 
non potest. Est autem lex illa perpetua ut Mare omnibus 
usu commune sit. Quod autem in praescriptione diximus, 
idem in consuetudine verum est, si quis eorum qui diversum 
tradiderunt sensus excutiat, non aliud reperturum, quam 
consuetudinem privilegio parari. Atqui adversus genus 
humanum concedendi privilegium nemo habet potestatem; 
quare inter diversas respublicas consuetudo ista vim non 
habet. 

Verum omnem hanc quaestionem diligentissime tractavit 
Vasquius,* decus illud Hispaniae, cuius nec in explorando 
ture subtilitatem, nec in docendo libertatem umquam de- 
sideres. Is igitur posita thesi: ‘ Loca publica et iure gentium 
communia praescribi non posse ’, quam multis firmat auctori- 
bus; exceptiones deinde subiungit ab Angelo et aliis confictas, 
quas supra retulimus.. Haec autem examinaturus recte 
judicat istarum rerum veritatem pendere a vera iuris, tam 
naturae quam gentium cognitione. Ius enim naturae cum a 


1 Cf. Gloss. eodem loco. 

? De officiis ministrorum I, 28; Gentilis I, 19 (sub finem). 
* Auth. Ut nulli Iudicum § 1, c. cum tanto de consuetudine. 
* Controversiae illustres c. 89, n. 12 et seq. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 52 


‘my house, such prohibition is a usurpation of right,’ allowed, 

it is true, by custom, but based on no law, and that an action 
for damages could not be denied the person thus prohibited 
from fishing. 

He therefore condemns this practice, and calls it a 
usurpation; of the Christian jurists Ambrose ” does likewise, 
and both are right. For what is clearer than that custom 
is not valid when it is diametrically opposed to the law of 
nature or of nations? * Indeed, custom is a sort of affirmative 
right, which cannot invalidate general or universal law. 
And it is a universal law that the sea and its use is com- { 
mon to all. Moreover what we have said about prescription 
applies with equal truth and force to custom; and if any 
one should investigate the opinions of those who have dif- | 
fered upon this matter, he would find no other opinion | 
but that custom is established by privilege. No one has 
the power to confer a privilege which is prejudicial to the 
rights of the human race; wherefore such a custom has no 
force as between different states. 

This entire question however has been most thoroughly 
treated by Vasquez,* that glory of Spain, who leaves noth- 
ing ever to be desired when it comes to subtle examination 
of the law or to the exposition of the principles of liberty. 
He lays down this thesis: ‘ Places public and common to all 
by the law of nations cannot become objects of prescription ’. 
This thesis he supports by many authorities, and then he 
subjoins the objections fabricated by Angeli and others, 
which we have enumerated above. But before examining 
these objections he makes the just and reasonable statement 
that the truth of all these matters depends upon a true con- 
ception both of the law of nature and the law of nations. 

*Glossators on the reference in note 4, page 51. 

2 De officiis ministrorum I, 28; Gentilis I, 19. 

* Auth. Ut nulli Iudicum § 1, c. cum tanto de consuetudine. 


4 Controversiae illustres c. 89, n. 12 ff. [Ferdinand Manchaea Vasquez (1509- 
1566) the famous Spanish jurisconsult, who held many high honors of the realm]. 


53 MARE LIBERVM 


divina veniat providentia, esse immutabile. Huius autem 
iuris naturalis partem esse ius gentium, primaevum quod 
dicitur, diversum a iure gentium secundario sive positivo, 
quorum posterius mutari potest. Nam si qui mores cum iure 
gentium primaevo repugnent, hi non humani sunt ipso iudice, 
sed FERINI, corruptelae et abusus, non leges et usus. 
Itaque nullo tempore praescribi potuerunt, nulla lata lege 
justificari, nullo multarum etiam gentium consensu, hospitio, 
et exercitatione stabiliri, quod exemplis aliquot et Alphonsi 
Castrensis Theologi Hispani testimonio confirmat.’ 

‘Ex quibus apparet ’, inquit, ‘ quam suspecta sit sententia 
eorum, quos supra retulimus, existimantium Genuenses, aut 
etiam Venetos posse non iniuria prohibere alios navigare per 
Gulfum aut pelagus sui maris, quasi aequora ipsa praescrip- 
serint, id quod non solum est contra leges,” sed etiam est con- 
tra ipsum ius naturae, aut gentium primaevum, quod mutari 
non posse diximus. Quod sit contra illud ius constat, quia 
non solum maria aut aequora eo iure communia erant sed 
etiam reliquae omnes res immobiles. Et licet ab eo iure 
postea recessum fuerit ex parte, puta quoad dominium et 
proprietatem terrarum, quarum dominium iure Naturae com- 
mune, distinctum et divisum, sicque ab illa communione se- 
gregatum fuit; tamen * diversum fuit et est in dominio maris, 


* De potestate legis poenalis II, 14, part. 572. 

? Digest XLI, 1, 14 (De adquirendo rerum dominio, L. Quod in litore); XLI, 
3 (De usucapionibus, L. fin. in prin.); Institutes II, 1, 2 (De rerum divisione, 
§ Flumina, v. omnibus); Digest XLIV, 3, 7 (De diversis temporalibus prae- 
scriptionibus, L, Si quisquam); XLVII, 10, 14 (De iniuriis, L. Sane si maris). 

* Digest I, 1, 5 (De iustitia et iure, L. Ex hoc iure); Institutes I, 2 (De iure 
naturali et gentium et civili, § 2, v. ius autem gentium). 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS Piped} 


_ For, since the law of nature arises out of Divine Providence, 
it is immutable; but a part of this natural law is the primary 
or primitive law of nations, differing from the secondary or 
positive law of nations, which is mutable. For if there are 
customs incompatible with the primary law of nations, then, 
according to the judgment of Vasquez, they are not customs 
belonging to men, but to wild beasts, customs which are 
corruptions and abuses, not laws and usages. Therefore 
those customs cannot become prescriptions by mere lapse 
of time, cannot be justified by the passage of any law, can- 
not be established by the consent, the protection, or the 
practice even of many nations. These statements he con- 
firms by a number of examples, and particularly by the 
testimony of Alphonse de Castro* the Spanish theologian. 
* It is evident therefore ’, he says, ‘how much to be sus- 
pected is the opinion of those persons mentioned above, who 
think that the Genoese or the Venetians can without injus- 
tice prohibit other nations from navigating the gulfs or bays 
of their respective seas, as if they had a prescriptive right to 
the very water itself. Such an act is not only contrary to 
the laws,’ but is contrary also to natural law or the primary 
law of nations, which we have said is immutable. And this 
is seen to be true because by that same law not only the seas 
or waters, but also all other immovables were res communes. 
And although in later times there was a partial abandon- 
ment of that law, in so far as concerns sovereignty and 
ownership of lands—which by natural law at first were 
held in common, then distinguished and divided, and thus 
finally separated from the primitive community of use;— 
nevertheless * it was different as regards sovereignty over the 
sea, which from the beginning of the world down to this 


1De potestate legis poenalis II, 14, part 572 [Alphonse de Castro (?-1558). 
Theologian at Salamanca, confessor to the Emperor Charles V.]. 
2 Digest XLI, 1, 14; XLI, 3; Institutes IT, 1, 2; Digest XLIV, 3, 7; XLVII, 
10, 14. 
* Digest I, 1, 5; Institutes I, 2, § 2. 


54 MARE LIBERVM 


quod ab origine Mundi, ad hodiernum usque diem est, fuitque 
semper in communi, nulla ex parte immutatum, ut est 
notum ’, 
‘Et quamvis ex LVSITANIS magnam turbam saepe 
audiverim in hac esse opinione ut eorum Rex ita praescrip- 
serit navigationem INDICI Occidentalis (forte Orientalis) 
eiusdemque VASTISSIMI MARIS, ita ut reliquis gentibus 
aequora illa transfretare non liceat, et ex nostrismet HIS- 
PANIS VVLGVS in eadem opinione fere esse videtur, ut 
per VASTISSIMVM IMMENSVMQVE PONTVM ad 
Indorum regiones quas potentissimi Reges nostri subegerunt 
reliquis mortalium navigare praeterquam MHispanis ius 
minime sit, quasi ab eis id ius praescriptum fuerit, tamen 
istorum omnium non minus INSANAE sunt opiniones, 
quam eorum qui quoad Genuenses et Venetos in eodem fere 
SOMNIO esse adsolent, quas sententias INEPTIRE vel 
ex eo dilucidius apparet, quod istarum nationum singulae 
contra seipsas nequeunt praescribere: hoc est, non respublica 
Venetiarum contra semetipsam, non respublica Genuensium 
contra semetipsam, non Regnum Hispanicum contra semet- 
ipsum, non Regnum Lusitanicum contra semetipsum.* Esse 
enim debet differentia inter agentem et patientem ’. 
‘Contra reliquas vero nationes longe minus praescribere 
possunt, quia ius praescriptionum est mere civile, ut fuse 
ostendimus supra. Ergo tale ius cessat cum agitur inter 
principes vel populos, superiorem non recognoscentes in tem- 
poralibus. Jura enim mere civilia cuiuscumque regionis, 
1 Digest XLI, 3, 4, 26 (27) (De usucapionibus, L. Sequitur § Si viam); 
Institutes IV, 6, 14 (De actionibus, § Sic itaque); Ut dictis juribus et L. cum 


filio, ubi multa per Bartolum et Jason on Digest XXX, 11 (De Legatis I, L. Cum 
filio; part. I in pr. qu. 3 et 4). 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 54 


very day is and always has been a res communis, and which, 
as is well known, has in no wise changed from that status. 

‘And although’, he continues, ‘I have often heard that 
a great many Portuguese believe that their king has a pre- 
scriptive right over the navigation of the vast seas of the 
West Indies (probably the East Indies too) such that other 
nations are not allowed to traverse those waters; and al- 
though the common people among our own Spaniards seem 
to be of the same opinion, namely, that absolutely no one 
in the world except us Spaniards ourselves has the least 
right to navigate the great and immense sea which stretches 
to the regions of the Indies once subdued by our most pow- 
erful kings, as if that right has been ours alone by prescrip- 
tion; although, I repeat, I have heard both these things, 
nevertheless the belief of all those people is no less extrava- 
gantly foolish than that of those who are always cherishing 
the same delusions with respect to the Genoese and Vene- 
tians. Indeed the opinions of them all appear the more 
manifestly absurd, because no one of those nations can 
erect a prescription against itself; that is to say, not the 
Venetian republic, nor the Genoese republic, nor the king- 
dom of Spain nor of Portugal can raise prescriptions against 
rights they already possess by nature. For the one who 
claims a prescriptive right and the one who suffers by the 
establishment of such a claim must not be one and the same 
person. 

‘ Against other nations they are even much less com- 
petent to raise a prescription, because the right of prescrip- 
tion is only a municipal right, as we have shown above at 
some length. ‘Therefore such a right ceases to have any 
effect as between rulers or nations who do not recognize a 
superior in the temporal domain. For so far as the merely 
municipal laws of any place are concerned, they do not 


1 Digest XLI, 3, 4, 26 (27); Institutes IV, 6, 14; Bartolus and Jason on 
‘Digest XXX, 11. 


ae 
del ee 


55 MARE LIBERVM 


quoad exteros populos, nationes, vel etiam homines singulos, 
non magis sunt in consideratione, quam si re vera esset tale 
ius, aut numquam fuisset, et ad ius commune gentium pri- 
maevum vel secundarium recurrendum est, eoque utendum, 
quo iure talem maris praescriptionem et usurpationem ad- 
missam non fuisse satis constat. Nam, et hodie usus aquarum 
communis est, non secus quam erat ab origine Mundi. Ergo 
et in aequoribus et aquis nullum ius est aut esse potest hu- 
mano generi, praeterquam quoad usum communem. Prae- 
terea de iure naturali et divino est illud praeceptum, ut Quod 
tibt non vis fiert, alterinon facias. Vnde cum navigatio nemini 
possit esse nociva nisi ipsi naviganti, par est ut nemini possit, 
aut debeat impediri, ne in re sua natura libera, sibique minime 
noxia navigantium libertatem impediat, et laedat contra dic- 
tum praeceptum et contra regulam praesertim cum omnia 
intelligantur esse permissa, quae non reperiuntur expressim 
prohibita.*. Quinimo non solum contra ius naturale esset, 
velle impedire talem navigationem, sed etiam tenemur con- 
trarium facere, hoc est, prodesse iis quibus possumus, cum id 
sine damno nostro fieri potest ’. 

Quod cum multis auctoritatibus tam divinis quam hu- 
manis confirmasset, subiungit postea:* ‘ Ex superioribus 
etiam apparet suspectam esse sententiam Iohannis Fabri, 
Angeli, Baldi, et Francisci Balbi, quos supra retulimus, ex- 
istimantium loca iuris gentium communia, et si acquiri non 


possint praescriptione, posse tamen acquiri consuetudine, 


* Digest I, 5, 4 (De statu hominum, L. Libertas); Institutes I, 3, 1 (De iure 
personarum, § Et libertas); Digest XLIII, 29, 1 et 2 (De homine libero ex- 
hibendo) ; XLIV, 5, 1 (Quarum rerum actio non datur, L. Iusiurandum, § Quae 
onerandae) ; Code III, 28, 35 (De inofficioso testamento, L. Si quando, § Illud, 
v. adstringendos); Digest IV, 6, 28 (Ex quibus causis maiores, L. Nec non, 
§ ‘Quod eius’), 

* Code III, 44, 7 (De religiosis et sumptibus funerum, L. Statuas). 


ie Brey.) 
‘ y A " 


yt 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 55 


affect foreign peoples, nations, or even individuals, any 
more than if they did not exist or never had existed. There- 
fore it was necessary to have recourse to the common law 
of nations, primary as well as secondary, and to use a law 
which clearly had not admitted any such prescription and 
usurpation of the sea. For today the use of the waters is 
common, exactly as it has been since the creation of the 
world. ‘Therefore no man has a right nor can acquire a 
right over the seas and waters which would be prejudicial 
to their common use. Besides, there is both in natural and 
divine law that famous rule: ‘ Whatsoever ye would that 
men should not do to you, do not ye even so to them’. 
Hence it follows, since navigation cannot harm any one 
except the navigator himself, it is only just that no one 
either can or ought to be interdicted therefrom, lest nature, 
free in her own realm, and least hurtful to herself, be found 
impeding the liberty of navigation, and thus offending 
against the accepted precept and rule that all things are 
supposed to be permitted which are not found expressly 
forbidden.* Besides, not only would it be contrary to nat- 
ural law to wish to prevent such free navigation, but we are 
even bound to do the opposite, that is, bound to assist such 
navigation in whatever way we can, when it can be done 
without any prejudice to ourselves ’. 

After Vasquez had established his point by the help of 
many authorities both human and divine, he added:* ‘ It 
appears then, from what has gone before that the opinion 
held by Johannes Faber, Angeli, Baldus, and Franciscus 
Balbus, whom we have cited above, is not to be trusted, be- 
cause they think that places common by the law of nations, 
even if not open to acquisition by prescription, can never- 
theless be acquired by custom; but this is entirely false, and 

1 Digest I, 5, 4; Institutes I, 3, 1; Digest XLIII, 29, 1-2; MULV, G5: 1s 


Code III, 28, 35; Digest IV, 6, 28. 
2 Code III, 44, 7. 


56 MARE LIBERVM 


quod omnino FALSVM est, eaque traditio CAKCA ET 
NVBILA est, OMNIQVE RATIONIS LVMINE 
CARENS, legemque verbis non rebus imponens.* In ex- 
emplis enim de Mari Hispanorum, LVSITANORVM, 
Venetorum, Genuensium, et reliquorum, constat consuetu- 
dine ius tale navigandi, et alios navigare prohibendi non 
magis acquiri quam praescriptione.*” Vtroque enim casu ut 
apparet, eadem est ratio. Et quia per iura et rationes supra 
relatas id esset contra naturalem aequitatem, nec ullam 
induceret utilitatem, sed solam laesionem, sicque ut lege ex- 
pressa introduci non possent, ita etiam nec lege tacita, qualis 
est consuetudo.* Et tempore id non iustificaretur, sed potius 
deterius et iniurius in dies fieret’. 

Ostendit deinde ex prima terrarum occupatione posse 
populo ut venandi lus, ita piscandi in suo flumine competere, 
et postquam illa semel ab antiqua communione separata 
sunt, ita ut particularem applicationem admittant, praescrip- 
tione temporis eius, cuius initi memoria non exstet, quasi 
tacita populi concessione acquiri posse. Hoc autem per prae- 
scriptionem contingere, non per consuetudinem, quia solius 
acquirentis condicio melior fiat, reliquorum vero deterior. Et 
cum tria enumerasset quae requiruntur, ut ius proprium in 
flumine piscandi praescribatur: 

‘Quid autem’, subdit, ‘quoad mare? Et in eo magis est 


* Code VI, 43 (Communia de legatis, Contra L. 2, cum vulgatis). 

* Digest IX, 2, 32 (Ad legem Aquiliam, L. Illud). 

3 Dist. IV, C II (Erit autem lex) ; Digest I, 3, 1 et 2 (De legibus), 32 (eod. tit., 
L. De quibus, cum seq.); Decretales Gregorii Papae IX, II, 26, 20 (De prae- 
scriptionibus, c. Quoniam). 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 56 


is a teaching which is both obscure and vague, which lacks 
the faintest glimmer of reasonableness, and which sets up a 
law in word but not in fact.* For it is well established from 
the examples taken from the seas of the Spaniards, Portu- 
guese, Venetians, Genoese, and others, that an exclusive 
right of navigation and a right of prohibiting others from 
navigation is no more to be acquired by custom than by 
prescription.” And it is apparent that the reason is the 
same in both cases. And since according to the laws and 
reasons adduced above this would be contrary to natural 
equity and would not bring benefit but only injury, there- 
fore as it could not be introduced by an express law, neither 
could it be introduced by a tacit or implied law, and that 
is what custom is.* And far from justifying itself by any 
lapse of time, it rather becomes worse, and every day more 
injurious ’, 

Vasquez next shows that from the time of the earliest 
occupation of the earth every people possessed the right 
of hunting in its own territory, and of fishing in its own 
rivers. After those rights were once separated from the 
ancient community of rights in such a way that they ad- 
mitted of particular attachments, they could be acquired 
by prescription based upon such an efflux of time that “ the 
memory of its beginning does not exist,” as if by the 
tacit permission of a nation. This comes about, however, 
by prescription and not by custom, because only the condi- 
tion of him who acquires is bettered, while that of all other 
persons is made worse. Then after Vasquez had enumerated 
three conditions which are requisite in order that a private 
right of fishing in a river may become a right by prescrip- 
tion, he continues as follows: 

‘But what are we to say as regards the sea? ‘There is 


1Code VI, 43. 
* Digest IX, 2, 32. 
® Dist. IV, C. II; Digest I, 3, 1-2, 32; Decretals of Pope Gregory IX, II, 26, 20. 


57 MARE LIBERVM 


quod etiam concursus istorum trium non sufficeret ad ac- 
quirendum ius. Ratio differentiae inter mare ex una parte, 
et terram et flumina ex altera, quia illo casu ut olim ita et 
hodie, et semper, tam quoad piscandum quam quoad navigan- 
dum mansit integrum ius gentium primaevum, neque 
umquam fuit a communione hominum separatum, et alicui, 
vel aliquibus applicatum, Posteriore autem casu, nempe in 
terra vel fluminibus aliud fuit, ut iam disseruimus ’. 

“Sed quare ius gentium secundarium, ut eam separa- 
tionem quoad terras et flumina facit, quoad mare facere 
desiit? respondeo, quia illo casu expediebat. Constat enim 
quod si multi venentur, aut piscentur in terra vel flumine, 
facile nemus feris, et flumen piscibus evacuatum redditur, 
id quod in mari non est. Item fluminum navigatio facile 
deterior fit et impeditur per aedificia, quod in mari non est. 
Item per aquaeductus facile evacuatur flumen, non ita in 
mari; * ergo in utroque non est par ratio’. 

‘Nec ad rem pertinet, quod supra diximus, communem 
esse usum aquarum, fontium etiam et fluminum., Nam in- 
telligitur quoad bibendum et similia, quae fluminis dominium 
aut ius habenti vel minime vel levissime nocent.* Minima 
enim in consideratione non sunt. Pro nostris sententiis facit, 
quia iniqua nullo tempore praescribuntur, et ideo lex iniqua 
nullo tempore praescribitur, aut iustificatur ’. Mox: ° Et 


* Digest XLIII, 13 (Ne quid in flumine publico fiat). 
* Digest IV, 4, 3 (De minoribus, L. 3, § Scio); Vasquius, De successionum 
progressu I, 7. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 57 


more to say about it, because even the combination of the 
three conditions mentioned is not sufficient here for the ac- 
quisition of such a right. The reason for the difference be- 
tween the sea on one hand and land and rivers on the other, 
is that in the case of the sea the same primitive right of 
nations regarding fishing and navigation which existed in 
the earliest times, still today exists undiminished and always 
will, and because that right was never separated from the 
community right of all mankind, and attached to any person 
or group of persons. But in the latter case, that of the land 
and rivers, it was different, as we have already set forth. 
‘But why, it is asked, does the secondary law of nations 
which brings about this separation when we consider lands 
and rivers cease to operate in the same way when we con- 
sider the sea? I reply, because in the former case it was 
expedient and necessary. For every one admits that if a 
great many persons hunt on the land or fish in a river, 
the forest is easily exhausted of wild animals and the river 
of fish, but such a contingency is impossible in the case 
of the sea. Again, the navigation of rivers is easily lessened 
and impeded by constructions placed therein, but this is not 
true of the sea. Again, a river is easily emptied by means 
of aqueducts but the sea cannot be emptied by any such 
means. ‘Therefore there is not equal reason on both sides. 
‘Neither does what we have said above about the com- 
mon use of waters, springs, and rivers, apply in this case, 
for common use is recognized in them all for purposes of 
drinking and the like, such usages namely as do not injure 
at all or in the slightest degree him who owns a river or 
has some other right in one.” These are trifles for which we 
have no time. What makes for our contention is the fact 
that no lapse of time will give a prescriptive right to any- 
thing unjust. Therefore an unjust law is not capable of 


1 Digest XLIII, 13. 
? Digest IV, 4, 3; Vasquius, De successionum progressu I, 7. 


58 MARE LIBERVM 


quae sunt impraescriptibilia ex legis dispositione, nec per 
mille annos praescriberentur’; quod innumeris doctorum 
testimoniis fulcit.’ 

Nemo iam non videt, ad usum rei communis intercipien- 
dum nullam quantivis temporis usurpationem prodesse. Cui 
adiungendum est etiam eorum qui dissentiunt auctoritatem 
huic quaestioni non posse accommodari. Illi enim de Medi- 
terraneo loquuntur, nos de Oceano; illi de sinu, nos de im- 
menso mari, quae in ratione occupationis plurimum differunt. 
Et quibus illi indulgent praescriptionem, illi tora mari con- 
tinua possident, ut Veneti et Genuenses, quod de Lusitanis 
dici non posse modo patuit. 

Immo et si prodesse posset tempus, ut quidam posse 
putant in publicis quae sunt, populi, tamen non ea adsunt 
quae necessario requiruntur. Primum enim docent omnes 
desiderari, ut is qui praescribit huiusmodi actum, eum exer- 
cuerit non longo dumtaxat tempore, sed memoriam exce- 
dente; deinde ut tanto tempore eundem actum nemo alius 
exercuerit, nisi concessione illius, vel clandestine; praeterea 
ut alios uti volentes prohibuerit, scientibus quidem et patien- 


* Balbus, De praescriptionibus 5 in pr. in qu. 11, illius 5, quaest. pr. Gl. in 
cap. inter caetera 16, q. 3; Castrensis, De potestate legis poenalis II, 14; 
Balbus, and Angelus, on Code VII, 39, 4 (De praescriptione XXX vel XL 
annorum, L. Omnes). 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 58 


erecting a prescriptive right or of being justified by efflux of 
time’. A little farther on Vasquez says: ‘ Things which are 
imprescriptible by the disposition of the law, may not be- 
come objects of prescription even after the lapse of a thou- 
sand years’. ‘This statement he supports by countless cita- 
tions from the jurists.* 

Every one perceives that no usurpation no matter how 
long continued is competent to intercept the use of a res 
communis. And it must also be added, that the authority 
of those who hold dissenting opinions cannot possibly be 
applied to the question here at issue. For they are talking 
about the Mediterranean, we are talking about the Ocean; 
they speak of a gulf, we of the boundless sea; and from the 
point of view of occupation these are wholly different things. 
And too, those peoples, to whom the authorities just men- 
tioned concede prescription, the Venetians and Genoese for 
example, possess a continuous shore line on the sea, but 
it is clear that not even that kind of possession can be claimed 
for the Portuguese. 

Further, even if mere lapse of time, as some think, could 
establish a right by prescription over public property, still 
the conditions absolutely indispensable for the creation of 
such a right are in this case absent. The conditions de- | 
~ manded are these: first, all jurists teach that he who sets | 
up a prescriptive right of this sort shall have been in actual | 
possession not only for a considerable period, but from time | 
immemorial; next, that during all that time no one else 
shall have exercised the same right of possession unless by | 
permission of that possessor or clandestinely; besides that, 
it is necessary that he shall have prevented other persons 
wishing to use his possession from so doing, and that such | 
measures be a matter of common knowledge and done by | 
the suffrance of those concerned in the matter. For even if 


1 Balbus, De praescriptionibus 5, 11; 16, 3; Alphonse de Castro, De potestate 
legis poenalis II, 14; Balbus and Angelus on Code VII, 39, 4. 





59 MARE LIBERVM 


tibus iis ad quos ea res pertinebat; nam etsi exercuisset sem- 
per, et quosdam exercere volentes prohibuisset semper, non 
tamen omnes, quia alii fuerunt prohibiti, alu vero libere 
exercuerunt, id quidem non sufficeret, ex Doctorum sen- 
tentia. 

Apparet autem debere haec omnia concurrere, tum quia 
praescriptioni publicarum rerum lex inimica est, tum ut 
videatur praescribens iure suo non autem communi usus, 
idque non interrupta possessione. 

Cum autem tempus postulatur, cuius initi non exstet 
memoria, non semper sufficit, ut optimi interpretes ostendunt, 
probare saeculi lapsum; sed constare oportet famam rei a 
maioribus ad nos transmissam, ita ut nemo supersit qui con- 
trarium viderit, aut audierit. Occasione rerum Africanarum 
in ulteriora primum Oceani inquirere coeperunt regnante 
Tohanne Lusitani,* anno salutis millesimo quadringentesimo 
septuagesimo septimo. Viginti post annis, sub Rege 
Emanuele promontorium Bonae spei praeternavigatum est, 
serlusque multo ventum Malaccam, et insulas remotiores, ad 
quas Batavi navigare coeperunt anno millesimo quingen- 
tesimo nonagesimo quinto, non dubie intra annum centesi- 
mum. Jam vero etiam eo quod intercessit tempore aliorum 
usurpatio adversus alios etiam omnes impedivit praescrip- 
tionem. Castellani ab anno millesimo quingentesimo decimo 
nono possessionem Lusitanis maris circa Moluccas ambiguam 


* Osorius, De rebus Emmanuelis regis Lusitaniae I. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 59 


he had continuously exercised his right of possession, and 
had always prevented from using his possession some of 
those who wished to do so, but not all; then, because some 
had been prevented from exercising and others freely al- 
lowed to exercise that use, that kind of possession accord- 
ing to the opinion of the jurists, is not sufficient to establish 
a right by prescription. | 

It is clear therefore that all these conditions should be 
present, both because law is opposed to the prescription of 
_ public things, and in order that he who sets up such a 
prescription may seem to have used his own private right, 
not a public right, and that too by continuous possession. 

Now, inasmuch as time beyond the period of the memory 
of man is demanded for the creation of a prescriptive right, 
it is not always sufficient, as the best commentators point 
out, to prove the lapse of a hundred years, but the tradition 
handed down to us by our ancestors ought to be undisputed, 
provided no one is left alive who has seen or heard anything 
to the contrary. It was during the reign of King John,’ in 
the year of our Lord 1477, at the time of the wars in Africa, 
that the Portuguese began to push their discoveries first 
into the more distant parts of the Ocean. Twenty years 
later, during the reign of King Emmanuel, they rounded 
the Cape of Good Hope, and somewhat later yet, reached 
Malacca, and the islands beyond, the very islands, indeed, to 
which the Dutch began to sail in the year 1595, that is, 
well within a hundred years of the time that the Portuguese 
first arrived. And in truth even in that interval, the usurpa- 
tion of rights there by other parties had interrupted the 
competence of everybody else to create a prescriptive right. 
For example, from the year 1519, the Spaniards rendered 
the possession by the Portuguese of the sea around the 
Moluccas a very uncertain one. Even the French and 


* Osorius, De rebus Emmanuelis regis Lusitaniae I [Hieronymus Osorius 
(1506-1580) was known as the Portuguese Cicero]. 


60 MARE LIBERVM 


fecere, Galli etiam et Angli non clanculum, sed via aperta 
eo perruperunt. Praeterea accolae totius tractus Africani, 
aut Asiatici partem maris quisque sibi proximam piscando 
et navigando perpetuo usurparunt, numquam a Lusitanis 
prohibiti. 

Conclusum igitur sit, ius nullum esse Lusitanis quo 
aliam quamvis gentem a navigatione Oceani ad Indos pro- 
hibeant. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 60 


English made their way to those newly discovered places 
not secretly, but by force of arms. And besides these, the 
inhabitants of the entire coast of Africa and Asia con- 
stantly used for fishing and navigation that part of the sea 
nearest their own several coasts, and were never interdicted 
from such use by the Portuguese. 

The conclusion of the whole matter therefore is that the 
Portuguese are in possession of no right whereby they may 
interdict to any nation whatsoever the navigation of the 
Ocean to the East Indies. 


CAPVT VIII 


Iure gentium inter quosvis liberam 
esse mercaturam: 


Quod si dicant Lusitani cum Indis commercia exercendi 
ius quoddam proprium ad se pertinere, eisdem fere omnibus 
argumentis refellentur. Repetemus breviter et aptabimus. 

Ture Gentium hoc introductum est, ut cunctis hominibus 
inter se libera esset negotiandi facultas, quae a nemine 
posset adimi.* Et hoc, sicut post dominiorum distinctionem 
continuo necessarium fuit, ita originem videri potest anti- 
quiorem habuisse. Subtiliter enim Aristoteles peraPAnrinny 
dixit, avanhnpwow THS HATA PUoLv avrapuetas, ” hoe est, 
negotiatione suppleri id quod naturae deest, quo commode 
omnibus sufficiat. Oportet igitur communem esse iure 
gentium non tantum privative, sed et positive, ut dicunt 


magistri, sive affirmative.* Quae autem illo modo sunt iuris 


gentium, mutari possunt: quae hoe modo, non possunt. Id 
ita intelligi potest. 

Dederat natura omnia omnibus. Sed cum a rerum 
multarum usu, quas vita desiderat humana, locorum intervallo 


homines arcerentur, quia ut supra diximus, non omnia ubique 
* Digest I, 1, 5 (De iustitia et iure, L. Ex hoc iure); et ibi Bartolus. 


* Aristotle, Politica I, 9 (12574 30). 
* Cf. Covarruvias in c. Peccatum, § 8. 


61 


in, 
a 
- a ee 
os — . 


CHAPTER VIII 


By the Law of Nations trade is free to all persons 
whatsoever 


If however the Portuguese claim that they have an 
exclusive right to trade with the East Indies, their claim 
will be refuted by practically all the same arguments which 
already have been brought forward. Nevertheless I shall 
repeat them briefly, and apply them to this particular 
claim. 

By the law of nations the principle was introduced that 
_the opportunity to engage in trade, of which no one can. 
be deprived,’ should be free to all men, ‘This principle, 
inasmuch as its application was straightway necessary after 
the distinctions of private ownerships were made, can there- 
fore be seen to have had a very remote origin. Aristotle, 
in a very clever phrase, in his work entitled the Politics,’ has 
said that the art of exchange is a completion of the inde- 
pendence which Nature requires. Therefore trade ought to 
be common to all according to the law of nations, not only 
in a negative but also in a positive, or as the jurists say, 
affirmative sense.* The things that come under the former 
category are subject to change, those of the latter category 
are not. ‘This statement is to be explained in the following 
way. 

Nature had given all things to all men. But since men 
were prevented from using many things which were de- 
sirable in every day life because they lived so far apart, 

1 Digest I, 1, 5. 

21,9 (1257 30). 


* Cf. Covarruvias in c. Peccatum, § 8. 
61 


62 MARE LIBERVM 


proveniunt, opus fuit traiectione; nec adhuc tamen permu- 
tatio erat, sed aliis vicissim rebus apud alios repertis suo 
arbitrio utebantur; quo fere modo apud Seres dicitur rebus 
in solitudine relictis sola mutantium religione peragi com- 
mercium.* 

Sed cum statim res mobiles monstrante necessitate, quae 
modo explicata est, in ius proprium transissent, inventa 
est permutatio, qua quod alteri deest ex eo quod alteri 
superest suppleretur.* Ita commercia victus gratia inventa 
ex Homero Plinius probat.* Postquam vero res etiam 
immobiles in dominos distingui coeperunt, sublata undique 
communio non inter homines locorum spatiis discretos tan- 
tum, verum etiam inter vicinos necessarium fecit commer- 
cium; quod ut facilius procederet, nummus postea ad- 
inventus est, dictus azo rod vonov quod institutum sit civile.* 

Ipsa igitur ratio omnium contractuum  universalis, 
7 petaBaAntiun a natura est; modi autem aliquot singulares 
ipsumque pretium, 77 ypyuariorzny ab instituto; ° quae vetus- 
tiores iuris interpretes non satis distinxerunt. Fatentur 


* Pomponius Mela, De situ orbis III, 7. 

* Digest XVIII, 1, 1 (De contrahenda emptione, L. Origo). 

* Naturalis historia XX XIII, 1. 

* Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea 6, 5, 11 (11334 20): ob toe aAAd vou Eori; 
Politica I, 9 (1257 10), 

5 Dist. I, C. VII (Ius naturale); Aristotle, 1. ¢. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 62 


and because, as we have said above, everything was not 
found everywhere, it was necessary to transport things from 
one place to another; not that there was yet an interchange 
of commodities, but that people were accustomed to make 
reciprocal use of things found in one another’s territory 
according to their own judgment. They say that trade 
arose among the Chinese in about this way. Things were 
deposited at places out in the desert and left to the good 
faith and conscience of those who exchanged things of their 
own for what they took.’ 

But when movables passed into private ownership (a 
change brought about by necessity, as has been explained 
above), straightway there arose a method of exchange by 
which the lack of one person was supplemented by that of 
which another person had an over supply.” Hence com- 
merce was born out of necessity for the commodities of life, 
as Pliny shows by a citation from Homer.* But after im- 
movables also began to be recognized as private property, 
the consequent annihilation of universal community of use 
made commerce a necessity not only between men whose 
habitations were far apart but even between men who were 
neighbors; and in order that trade might be carried on more 
easily, somewhat later they invented money, which, as the 
derivation of the word shows, is a civic institution.* 

Therefore the universal basis of all contracts, namely 
exchange, is derived from nature; but some particular kinds 
of exchange, and the money payment itself, are derived from 
law; ° although the older commentators on the law have not 
made this distinction sufficiently clear. Nevertheless all 


* Pomponius Mela, De situ orbis III, 7. 

* Digest XVIII, 1, 1. 

* Natural History XXXIII, 1. 

* Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 5, 5, 11 (11334 20); Politics I, 9 (1257> 10) 
[Nummus — véuoc, The fact that this is an incorrect derivation does not of 
course affect the argument]. 

5 Dist. I, C. VII; Aristotle, see note 4 above. 


63 MARE LIBERVM 


tamen omnes proprietatem rerum, saltem mobilium a iure 
gentium primario prodire, itemque contractus omnes quibus 
pretium non accedit.* Philosophi* rs perafAnrinys quam 
translationem vertere licebit, genera statuunt duo: zr 
émopiuny nai mv xanniinny quarumM éuxopinn quae ut vox 
ipsa indicat inter gentes dissitas, ordine naturae prior est, et 
sic a Platone ponitur.’ Kazndi:ny eadem videtur esse quae 
napactracis * Aristoteli, tabernaria sive stataria negotiatio 
inter cives. Idem Aristoteles® r7v éunxcpinny dividit in 
vavuAnpiav et poprnyiay quarum haec terrestri itinere, illa 
maritimo merces devehit. Sordidior autem est xamydinn 
contra honestior éuzopimym et maritima maxime, quia multa 
multis impertit.° 

Vnde navium exercitionem ad summam rempublicam 
pertinere dicit Vipianus; institorum non eundem esse usum; 
quia illa omnino secundum naturam necessaria est. Aris- 
toteles:" éo71 yap 9 perafAntinyn mavrov, dp&apuétvyn 1r0 ev 
xpdrov &% tov xara pio, TH Ta piv mheiw, ta 6& éhatt@ 
Tay tnavev éyetv tous avOpwrovs, ‘ est enim translatio rerum 
omnium coepta ab initio, ab eo quod est secundum naturam, 
cum homines partim haberent plura, quam _ sufficerent, 
partim etiam pauciora’. Seneca:* ‘quae emeris, vendere; 
gentium ius est’. 

Commercandi igitur libertas ex iure est primario gen- 


1 Castrensis ex Cino et aliis n, 20 et 28 on Digest I, 1, 5 (De iustitia et iure, 
L. Ex hoc iure). 

? Plato, Sophista 2934, 

* Plato, Republic II (p. 371) cited in Digest L, 11, 2 (De nundinis). 

* Politica I, 11 (1258> 22-23). 

5 kat ravtne wépn Tpia, vavkAnpia, doptyyia, Tapdotacie are the exact words. 

® Cicero, De officiis I, 150-151; Aristotle, Politica I, 9. 

TL. ce. (12578 14-17). 

5 De beneficiis V, 8. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 63 


authorities agree that the ownership of things, particularly 
of movables, arises out of the primary law of nations, and 
that all contracts in which a price is not mentioned, are de- 
rived from the same source.* The philosophers * distinguish 
two kinds of exchange using Greek words which we shall 
take the liberty to translate as ‘ wholesale’ and ‘retail’ 
trade. The former, as the Greek word shows, signifies 
trade or exchange between widely separated nations, and it 
ranks first in the order of Nature, as is shown in Plato’s 
Republic.* The latter seems to be the same kind of ex- 
change that Aristotle calls by another Greek word * which 
means retail or shop trade between citizens. Aristotle 
makes a further division of wholesale trade into overland 
and overseas trade.’ But of the two, retail trade is the more 
petty and sordid, and wholesale the more honorable; but 
most honorable of all is the wholesale overseas trade, because 
it makes so many people sharers in so many things.° 

Hence Ulpian says that the maintenance of ships is the 
highest duty of a state, because it is an absolutely natural 
necessity, but that the maintenance of hucksters has not the 
same value. In another place Aristotle says: ‘‘ For the art 
of exchange extends to all possessions, and it arises at first 
in a natural manner from the circumstance that some have 
too little, others too much.”* And Seneca is also to be cited 
in this connection for he has said that buying and selling is 
the law of nations.° 

Therefore freedom of trade is based on a primitive right 
of nations which has a natural and permanent cause; and 


* Castrensis from Cinus and others on Digest I, 1, 5, 

2 Plato, Sophista 2234, 

* II (p. 371) cited in Digest L, 11, 2. 

4 Politics I, 11 (1258> 22-93), 

* [The text here is somewhat expanded.] 

® Cicero, De officiis I, 150-151; Aristotle, Politics I, 9. 

* Politics I, 9 (12572 14-17) [Jowett’s translation, Vol. I, page 15]. 

® De beneficiis V, 8 [Not a quotation, but a summing up of the chapter]. 


64 MARE LIBERVM 


tium, quod naturalem et perpetuam causam habet, ideoque 
tolli non potest, et si posset non tamen posset nisi omnium 
gentium consensu: tantum abest ut ullo modo gens aliqua 
gentes duas inter se contrahere volentes iuste impediat. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 64 


so that right cannot be destroyed, or at all events it may 
not be destroyed except by the consent of all nations. For 
surely no one nation may justly oppose in any way two na- 
tions that desire to enter into a contract with each other. 


CAPVT IX 


Mercaturam cum Indis propriam non 
esse Lusitanorum titulo 
occupationis 


Primum inventio aut occupatio hic locum non habet, 
quia ius mercandi non est aliquid corporale, quod possit 
apprehendi; neque prodesset Lusitanis etiamsi primi homi- 
num cum Indis habuissent commercia, quod tamen non 
potest non esse falsissimum. Nam et cum initio populi in 
diversa iere, aliquos necesse est primos fuisse mercatores, 
quos tamen ius nullum acquisivisse certo est certius. Quare 
si Lusitanis ius aliquod competit, ut soli cum Indis nego- 
tientur, id exemplo ceterarum servitutum, ex concessione 
oriri debuit aut expressa aut tacita, hoc est praescriptione; 
neque aliter potest. 


65 


CHAPTER IX 


Trade with the East Indies does not belong to the 
Portuguese by title of occupation 


Neither discovery nor occupation [which have been 
fully treated in Chapters II and V], is to be invoked on 
the point here under consideration, because the right of 
carrying on trade is not something corporal, which can be 
physically seized; nor would discovery or occupation help 
the case of the Portuguese even if they had been the very 
first persons to trade with the East Indies, although such 
a claim would be entirely untenable and false. For since 
in the beginning peoples set out along different paths, it 
was necessary that some become the first traders, never- 
theless it is absolutely certain that those traders did not 
on that account acquire any rights. Wherefore if the Portu- 
guese have any right by virtue of which they alone may 
trade with the East Indies, that right like other servitudes 
ought to arise from concession, either express or tacit, that 
is to say, from prescription, Otherwise no such right ean 
exist. 


65 


CAPVT X 


Mercaturam cum Indis propriam non esse 
Lusitanorum titulo donationis 
Pontificiae 


Concessit nemo, nisi forte Pontifex, qui non potuit.* 
Nemo enim quod suum non est concedere potest. At Pon- 
tifex, nisi totius Mundi temporalis sit Dominus, quod 
negant sapientes, ius etiam commerciorum universale sui iuris 
dicere non potest. Maxime vero cum res sit ad solum 
quaestum accommodata, nihilque ad spiritualem procura- 
tionem pertinens, extra quam cessat, ut fatentur omnes, Pon- 
tificla potestas. Praeterea si Pontifex solis illud Lusitanis 
ius tribuere vellet idemque adimere hominibus ceteris, dupli- 
cem faceret iniuriam: Primum Indis, quos ut extra Eccle- 
siam positos Pontifici nulla ex parte subditos esse diximus. 
His igitur cum nihil quod ipsorum est adimere possit Ponti- 
fex, etiam ius illud quod habent cum quibuslibet negotiandi 
adimere non potuit. Deinde aliis hominibus omnibus Chris- 
tianis et non Christianis, quibus idem illud ius adimere non 
potuit sine causa indicta. Quid quod ne temporales quidem 
Domini in suis imperiis prohibere possunt commerciorum 
libertatem, uti rationibus et auctoritatibus ante demonstra- 
tum est? 

Sicut et illud confitendum est, contra ius perpetuum 
naturae gentiumque, unde ista libertas originem sumpsit in 
omne tempus duratura, nullam valere Pontificis auctori- 
tatem. 

*Cf. cap. III et VI. 


66 


CHAPTER X 


Trade with the East Indies does not belong to the Portu- 
guese by virtue of title based on the Papal 
Donation 


No one has granted it except perhaps the Pope, and 
he did not have the power.* For no one can give away 
what he does not himself possess. But the Pope, unless he 
were the temporal master of the whole world, which sen- 
sible men deny, cannot say that the universal right in re- 
spect of trade belongs to him. Especially is this true since 
trade has to do only with material gains, and has no con- 
cern at all with spiritual matters, outside of which, as all 
admit, Papal power ceases. Besides, if the Pope wished 
to give that right to the Portuguese alone, and to deprive 
all other men of the same right, he would be doing a double 
injustice. In the first place, he would do an injustice to the 
people of the East Indies who, placed as we have said 
outside the Church, are in no way subjects of the Pope. 
Therefore, since the Pope cannot take away from them 
anything that is theirs, he could not take away their right 
of trading with whomsoever they please. In the second 
place, he would do an injustice to all other men both Chris- 
tian and non-Christian, from whom he could not take that 
same right without a hearing. Besides, what are we to say 
of the fact that not even temporal lords in their own do- 
minions are competent to prohibit the freedom of trade, as 
has been demonstrated above by reasonable and authorita- 
tive statements? 

Therefore it must be acknowledged, that the authority 
of the Pope has absolutely no force against the eternal law 
of nature and of nations, from whence came that liberty 
which is destined to endure for ever and ever. 


+See chapters III and VI. 
66 


CAPVT XI 


Mercaturam cum Indis non esse Lusitanorum 
propriam ture praescriptionis aut 
consuetudins 


Restat praescriptio, seu consuetudinem mavis dicere.* 
Sed nec huius nec illius vim esse aliquam inter liberas na- 
tiones, aut diversarum gentium Principes, nec adversus ea 
quae primigenio iure introducta sunt, cum Vasquio ostendi- 
mus. Quare et hic ut ius mercandi proprium fiat, quod 
proprietatis naturam non recipit, nullo tempore efficitur. 
Itaque nec titulus hic adfuisse potest, nec bona fides, quae 
cum manifesto desinit, praescriptio secundum Canones non 
lus dicetur, sed iniuria. 

Quin et ipsa mercandi quasi possessio non ex lure proprio 
contigisse videtur, sed ex iure communi quod ad omnes 
aequaliter pertinet; sicut contra, quod aliae nationes cum 
Indis contrahere forte neglexerunt, id non Lusitanorum 
gratia fecisse existimandi sunt, sed quia sibi expedire credi- 
derunt; quod nihil obstat quo minus ubi suaserit utilitas, id 
facere possint, quod antea non fecerint. Certissima enim 
illa regula a doctoribus traditur,’ in his quae sunt arbitrii 
seu merae facultatis, ita ut per se actum tantum facultatis 
elus, non autem ius novum operentur, nec praescriptionis 


nec consuetudinis titulo annos etiam mille valituros: quod et 


*Cf. cap. VII. 

*Gloss. et Bartolus on Digest XLIII, 11, 2 (De via publica, L. Viam 
publicam); Balbus 4, 5 pr. qu. 1; Panormitanus on Decretales Gregorii Papae 
IX, III, 8, 10 (De concessione praebendae, c. Ex parte Hastenen.); Digest XLI, 
2, 41 (De adquirenda possessione, L. Qui iure familiaritatis); Covarruvias in 
c. possessor. 2, § 4; Vasquius, Controversiae illustres c. 4, n. 10 et 12. 


67 


CHAPTER XI 


Trade with the East Indies does not belong to the Portu- 
guese by title of prescription or custom 


Last of all, prescription, or if you prefer the term, 
custom.* We have shown that according to Vasquez, 
neither prescription nor custom had any force as between 
free nations or the rulers of different peoples, or any force 
against those principles which were introduced by primitive 
law. And here as before, mere efflux of time does not bring 
it to pass that the right of trade, which does not partake 
of the nature of ownership, becomes a private possession. 
Now in this case neither title nor good faith can be shown, 
and inasmuch as good faith is clearly absent, according to 
legal rules prescription will not be called a right, but an 
injury. 

Nay, the very possession involved in trading seems not 
to have arisen out of a private right, but out of a public 
right which belongs equally to all; so on the other hand, 
because nations perhaps neglected to trade with the East 
Indies, it must not be presumed that they did so as a favor 
to the Portuguese, but because they believed it to be to their 
own best interests. But nothing stands in their way, when 
once expediency shall have persuaded them, to prevent them 
from doing what they had not previously done. For the 
jurists * have handed down as incontestable the principle that 
where things arbitrable or facultative are such that they pro- 
duce nothing more than the facultative act per se, but do 
not create a new right, that in all such cases not even a thou- 
sand years will create a title by prescription or custom. 

1See chapter VII. 

?On Digest XLIII, 11, 2; Balbus 4, 5 pr. qu. 1; Panormitanus on the Decre- 
tals of Pope Gregory IX, III, 8, 10; Digest XLI, 2, 41; Covarruvias in c. possessor. 


2, § 4; Vasquius, Controversiae illustres c. 4, n. 10 and 12, 
67 


68 MARE LIBERVM 


affirmative et negative procedit, ut docet Vasquius. Nec 
enim quod libere feci facere cogor, nec quod non feci 
omittere. 

Alioquin quid esset absurdius quam ex eo quod singuli 
non possumus cum singulis semper contrahere, salvum 
nobis in posterum non esse ius cum illis, si usus tulerit, con- 
trahendi? Idem Vasquius et illud rectissime, ne infinito 
quidem tempore effici, ut quid necessitate potius, quam 
sponte factum videatur. 

Probanda itaque Lusitanis foret coactio, quae tamen 
ipsa cum hac in re iuri naturae sit contraria, et omni homi- 
num generi noxia, ius facere non potest.* Deinde illa 
coactio durasse debuit per tempus, cuius initii non exstet 
memoria; id vero tantum hinc abest, ut ne centum quidem 
anni exierint, ex quo tota fere negotiatio Indica penes 
Venetos fuit, per Alexandrinas traiectiones.* Debuit etiam 
talis esse coactio, cui restitum non sit. At restiterunt Galli 
et Angli, aliique. Neque sufficit aliquos esse coactos, sed ut 
omnes coacti sint requiritur, cum per unum non coactum ser- 
vetur in causa communi libertatis possessio. Arabes autem 
et Sinenses a saeculis aliquot ad hunc usque diem perpetuo 
cum Indis negotiantur. 

Nihil prodest ista usurpatio. 


1 Vasquius, l. c. n. 11. 
2 Guicciardini, Storia d’Italia XIX. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 68 


This, as Vasquez points out, acts both affirmatively and 
negatively. For I am not compelled to do what I have 
hitherto done of my own free will, nor am I compelled to 
stop doing what I have never done. 

What moreover could be more absurd then to deduce 
from the fact that we as individuals are not able always to 
conclude a bargain with other individuals, that there is not 
preserved to us for the future the right of bargaining with 
them if opportunity shall have offered? The same Vasquez 
has also most justly said that not even the lapse of infinite 
time establishes a right which seems to have arisen from 
necessity rather than choice. 

Therefore in order to establish a prescriptive right to 
the trade with the East Indies the Portuguese would be 
compelled to prove coercion. But since in such a case as this 
coercion is contrary to the law of nature and obnoxious to 
all mankind, it cannot establish a right. Next, that coercion 
must needs have been in existence for so long a time that 
“the memory of its beginning does not exist’; that, how- 
ever, is so far from being the case that not even a hun- 
dred years had elapsed since the Venetians controlled nearly 
the entire trade with the East Indies, carrying it via Alex- 
andria.” Again, the coercion ought to have been such that 
it was not resisted; but the English and the French and 
other nations besides, did resist it. Finally, it is not suffi- 
cient that some be coerced, but it is indispensable that all 
be coerced, because the possession of freedom of trade is 
preserved to all by a failure to use coercion upon even one 
person. Moreover, the Arabians and the Chinese are at the 
present day still carrying on with the people of the East 
Indies a trade which has been uninterrupted for several 
centuries. 

Portuguese usurpation is worthless. 


1 Vasquius, Controversiae illustres c. 4, n. 11. 
? Guicciardini, Storia d'Italia XIX. 


CAPVT XII 


Nulla aequitate nti Lusitanos in 
prohibendo commercio 


Ex his quae dicta sunt satis perspicitur eorum caeca 
aviditas, qui, ne quemquam in partem lucri admittant, illis 
rationibus conscientiam suam placare student, quas ipsi 
magistri Hispanorum qui in eadem sunt causa manifestae 
vanitatis convincunt.* Omnes enim qui in rebus Indicis usur- 
pantur colores iniuste captari quantum ipsis licet, satis 
innuunt, adduntque numquam eam rem serio Theologorum 
examine probatam. Illa vero querela quid est iniquius, quod 
dicunt Lusitani quaestus suos exhauriri copia contra licen- 
tium? Inter certissima enim Luris enuntiata est, nec in dolo 
eum versari, nec fraudem facere, ne damnum quidem alteri 
dare videri, qui iure suo utitur; quod maxime verum est, sinon 
ut alteri noceatur, sed rem suam augendi animo quippiam 
fiat.” Inspici enim debet id quod principaliter agitur, non 
quod extrinsecus in consequentiam venit. Immo si proprie 
loquimur cum VIpiano, non ille damnum dat, sed lucro quo 
adhuc alter utebatur eum prohibet. 

Naturale autem est et summo iuri atque etiam aequitati 


1 Vasquius, Controversiae illustres c, 10, n. 10; Victoria, De Indis I, 1, 
n. 3; Digest VI, 1, 27 (De rei vindicatione, L. Sin autem, § penult.) L, 17, 55 et 
151 (De diversis regulis, L. Nullus videtur, et L. Nemo damnum); XLII, 8, 13 
(Quae in fraudem creditorum, L. Illud constat); XXXIX, 2, 24 (De damno 
infecto, L. Fluminum, § ult.); Bartolus on Digest XLIII, 12, 1 (De fluminibus, 
L, 1, § 5); Castrensis on Code III, 34, 10 (De servitutibus, L. Si tibi); Digest 
XXXIX, 3, 1 (De aqua, L. Si cui, § Denique). 

? Vasquius, Controversiae illustres c. 4, n. 3 et seq.; Digest XXXIX, 2, 26 
(De damno infecto, L. Proculus). 


69 


CHAPTER XII 


The Portuguese prohibition of trade has no fowndation 
in equity 


From what has been said thus far it is easy to see the 
blind cupidity of those who in order not to admit any one 
else to a share in their gains, strive to still their consciences 
by the very arguments which the Spanish jurists, interested 
too in the same case, show to be absolutely empty.* For they 
intimate as clearly as they can that as regards India all the 
pretexts employed, are far fetched and unjust. They add 
that this right was never seriously approved by the swarm 
of theologians. Indeed, what is more unjust than the 
complaint made by the Portuguese that their profits 
are drained off by the number of their competitors? An 
incontrovertible rule of law lays down that a man who 
uses his own right is justly presumed to be contriving 
neither a deceit nor a fraud, in fact not even to be doing any 
one an injury. This is particularly true, if he has no inten- 
tion to harm any one, but only to increase his own property.’ 
For what ought to be considered is the chief and ultimate 
intent not the irrelevant consequence. Indeed, if we may 
with propriety agree with Ulpian, he is not doing an injury, 
but he is preventing some one from getting a profit which 
another was previously enjoying. 

Moreover it is natural and conformable to the highest 
law as well as equity, that when a gain open to all is con- 
cerned every person prefers it for himself rather than for 


1 Vasquius, Controversiae illustres c. 10, n. 10; Victoria, De Indis I, 1, n. 3; 
Digest VI, 1. 27; L, 17, 55, 151; XLII, 8, 13; XXXIX, 2, 24; Bartolus on Digest 
XLIII, 12, 1; Castrensis on Code III, 34, 10; Digest XX XIX, 3, 1. 

? Vasquius, Controversiae illustres c. 4, n. 3 ff.; Digest XX XIX, 2, 26. 

69 


70 MARE LIBERVM 


conveniens, ut lucrum in medio positum suum quisque malit 
quam alterius, etiam qui ante perceperat. Quis ferat 
querentem opificem quod alter eiusdem artis exercitio ipsius 
commoda evertat? Batavorum autem causa eo est iustior, 
quia ipsorum hac in parte utilitas cum totius humani generis 
utilitate coniuncta est, quam Lusitani eversum eunt.’? Neque 
hoc recte dicetur ad aemulationem fieri, ut in re simili ostendit 
Vasquius: aut enim plane hoc negandum est, aut asseveran- 
dum non ad bonam modo, verum etiam ad optimam aemu- 
lationem fieri, iuxta Hesiodum:* ayaén & “Epis 4de Bporoict 
“bona lis mortalibus haec est’. Nam etiam si quis pietate 
motus, inquit ile, frumentum in summa penuria vilius 
venderet, impediretur improba duritie eorum hominum, qui 
saeviente penuria suum carius fuerant vendituri. Verum 
est talibus modis minui aliorum reditus: nec id negamus, 
ait, “sed minuuntur cum universorum hominum commodo: 
ET VTINAM omnium PRINCIPVM et TYRRANO- 
RVM ORBIS reditus ita minuerentur ’. 

Quid ergo tam iniquum videri potest, quam Hispanos 
vectigalem habere Terrarum Orbem, ut nisi ad illorum 
nutum nec emere liceat nec vendere?* In cunctis civitatibus 
dardanarios odio atque etiam poenis prosequimur; nec ullum 
tam nefarium vitae genus videtur, quam ista annonae 
flagellatio.” Merito quidem. Naturae enim faciunt 


* Vasquius, 1. ¢. 

? Vasquius, I. c. n. 5, 

® Epya nal ‘Hyuépar 24. 

* Code IV, 59 (De monopoliis, L. 1). 

5 Caietanus on Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 77, a. 1, ad 3. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 70 


another, even if that other had already discovered it." Who 
would countenance an artisan who complained that another 
artisan was taking away his profits by the exercise of the 
same craft? But the cause of the Dutch is the more reason- 
able, because their advantage in this matter is bound up 
with the advantage of the whole human race, an advantage 
which the Portuguese are trying to destroy.” Nor will it be 


correct to say, that this is done in rivalry, as Vasquez shows 


in a similar case. For clearly we must either deny this or 
affirm that it is done not only in honorable but in most hon- 
orable rivalry, for, as Hesiod says, ‘ This rivalry is honora- 
ble for mortal men’.* For, says Vasquez, if any one should 
be so moved by love for his fellow man as to offer grain at a 
time of great scarcity for a lower price than usual, he would 
be prevented by the wicked and hardhearted men who had 
the intention of selling their grain at a higher price than 
usual, because of the pinch caused by the scarcity. But, some 
one will object, by such methods the profits of others will be 
made less. “We do not deny it’, says Vasquez, ‘ but they 
are made less to the corresponding advantage of all other 
men. And would that the profits of all Rulers and Tyrants 
of this world could be thus lessened ’! 

Indeed can anything more unjust be conceived than for 
the Spaniards to hold the entire world tributary, so that it 
is not permissible either to buy or to sell except at their good 
pleasure? * In all states we heap odium upon grain specu- 
lators and even bring them to punishment; and in very truth 
there seems to be no other sort of business so disgraceful as 
that of forcing up prices in the grain market.* That is not 


1 Vasquius, same reference. 

2 Vasquius, same reference, n. 5. 

2 In his Works and Days [The entire passage as translated by A. W. Mair 
(Oxford translation, page 1) is: “For when he that hath no business looketh on 
him that is rich, he hasteth to plow and to array his house: and neighbour 
vieth with neighbour hasting to be rich: good is this Strife for men.”]. 

* Code IV, 59. 

5 Cajetan on Thomas Aquinas, Summa II, II, q. 77, a. 1, ad 3. 


71 MARE LIBERVM 


iniuriam, quae in commune fecunda est:* neque vero cen- 
seri debet in usus paucorum reperta negotiatio, sed ut quod 
alteri deest alterius copia pensaretur, iusto tamen com- 
pendio omnibus proposito, qui laborem ac periculum trans- 
ferendi in se suscipiunt. 

Hoc ipsum igitur quod in republica, id est, minore 
hominum conventu, grave et perniciosum iudicatur, in 
magna illa humani generis societate ferendumne est? 
ut scilicet totius mundi monopolium faciant populi His- 
pani? MInvehitur Ambrosius in eos qui maria claudunt,’ 
Augustinus in eos qui itinera obstruunt; Nazianzenus in * 
coemptores suppressoresque mercium, qui ex inopia aliorum 
soli quaestum faciunt, et ut ipse facundissime loquitur 
natanpaypatevovtar THs évdeias. Quin et divini sapientis 
sententia publicis diris devovetur sacerque habetur, qui 
alimenta supprimendo vexat annonam: 6 ovvéywyv oirov 
On LOXATAPATOS. 

Clament igitur Lusitani quantum, et quam diu libebit: 
‘Lucra nostra deciditis’. Respondebunt Batavi: ‘ Immo 
nostris invigilamus. Hocne indignamini in partem nos 
venire ventorum et maris? Et quis illa vobis lucra mansura 
promiserat? Salvum est vobis, quo nos contenti sumus ’. 


* Aristotle, Politica I, 9. 
* Hexameron V, 10, 4, q. 44. 
*In funere Basilii. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 71 


to be wondered at, for such speculators are doing an injury 
to nature, who, as Aristotle says, is fertile for all alike.* 
Accordingly it ought not to be supposed that trade was in- 
vented for the benefit of a few, but in order that the lack of 
one would be counterbalanced by the oversupply of another, 
a fair return also being guaranteed to all who take upon 
themselves the work and the danger of transport. 

Is the same thing then which is considered grievous and 
pernicious in the smaller community of a state to be put up 
with at all in that great community of the human race? 
Shall the people of Spain, forsooth, assume a monopoly of 
all the world? Ambrose inveighs against those who inter- 
fere with the freedom of the sea;? Augustine against those 
who obstruct the overland routes;and Gregory of Nazianzus* 
against those who buy goods and hold them, and thus (as he 
eloquently says) make profits for themselves alone out of 
the helplessness and need of others. Indeed in the opinion 
of this wise and holy man any person who holds back grain 
and thus forces up the market price ought to be given over 
to public punishment and be adjudged worthy of death. 

Therefore the Portuguese may cry as loud and as long 
as they shall please: ‘ You are cutting down our profits’! 
The Dutch will answer: ‘ Nay! we are but looking out for 
our own interests! Are you angry because we share with 
you in the winds and the sea? Pray, who had promised 
that you would always have those advantages? You are 
secure in the possession of that with which we are quite 
content ’. 

1 Politics I, 9. 


? Hexameron V, 10, 4, q. 44. 
® In funere Basilii. 


CAPVT XIII 


Batavis tus commercu Indicant qua 
pace, qua indutius, qua belto 
retinendum 


Quare cum et ius et aequum postulet, libera nobis ita 
ut cuiquam esse Indiae commercia, superest, ut sive cum 
Hispanis pax, sive indutiae fiunt, sive bellum manet, 
omnino eam, quam a natura habemus libertatem tueamur. 
Nam ad pacem quod attinet, notum est eam esse duorum 
generum: aut enim pari foedere, aut impari coitur. Graeci* 
istam vocant ovvOynnv 8 tcov hance omovdas && éxitaypar@v 
illa virorum est, haec ingeniorum servilium. Demosthenes 
in oratione de libertate Rhodiorum:’* xai r01 ypy rods Bov- 


Aopévous élevbépous sivar tas én TaV énitaypatw@v ovvOnnas 
gpevyev, ws éyyvs Sovdsias ovcas, “eos qui volunt esse 
liberi oportet omnes condiciones quibus leges imponuntur 
ita fugere tamquam quae proximae sunt servituti’. 
Tales autem sunt omnes quibus pars altera in iure 
suo imminuitur, iuxta Isocratis definitionem* vocantis 
Ta TOUS érépous *harrobvra mapa to Sinaiov. Si enim, ut 
inquit Cicero,* ‘ suscipienda bella sunt ob eam causam, ut sine 
iniuria in pace vivatur’, sequitur eodem auctore *, pacem 
esse vocandam, non pactionem servitutis, sed tranquillam 
libertatem; quippe cum et Philosophorum et Theologorum 

1 Thucydides, Isocrates, Andocides. 

2 Isocrates, Archidamos 51. 

3 Panegyricus 176. 


* De officiis I, 35. 
*[Philippica XII, 14: cum iis facta pax non erit pax, sed pactio servitutis. ] 


72 


CHAPTER XIII 


The Dutch must maintain their right of trade with the East 
Indies by peace, by treaty, or by war 


Wherefore since both law and equity demand that trade 
with the East Indies be as free to us as to any one else, 
it follows that we are to maintain at all hazards that free- 
dom which is ours by nature, either by coming to a peace 
agreement with the Spaniards, or by concluding a treaty, or 
by continuing the war. So far as peace is concerned, it is 
well known that there are two kinds of peace, one made on 
terms of equality, the other on unequal terms. The Greeks * 
call the former kind a compact between equals, the latter 
an enjoined truce; the former is meant for high souled 
men, the latter for servile spirits. Demosthenes in his 
speech on the liberty of the Rhodians’ says that it was 
necessary for those who wished to be free to keep away 
from treaties which were imposed upon them, because such 
treaties were almost the same as slavery. Such conditions 
are all those by which one party is lessened in its own right, 
according to the definition of Isocrates.* For if, as Cicero 
says, wars must be undertaken in order that people may 
live in peace unharmed, it follows that peace ought to mean 
not an agreement which entails slavery, but an undisturbed 
liberty, especially as peace and justice according to 


1 Thucydides, Isocrates, Andocides. 
- #Isocrates, Archidamos 51 [Grotius probably quoted here from memory]. 
*Panegyric 176. 
4De officiis I, 35. 
72 


73 MARE LIBERVM 


complurium * iudicio pax et justitia nominibus magis quam 
re differant, sitque pax non qualiscumque, sed ordinata 
concordia. 

Indutiae autem si fiunt satis apparet ex ipsa indutiarum 
natura non debere medio earum tempore condicionem 
cuiusquam deteriorem fieri, cum ferme interdicti uti possi- 
detis instar obtineant. 

Quod si in bellum trudimur hostium iniquitate, debet 
nobis causae aequitas spem ac fiduciam boni eventus addere. 
Nam? ozip wv av BMarravrar peyp) dvvarov nmavres mode- 
powder, mepi 6& rod meovexreiv ovy ovrws, ‘pro his in 
quibus iniuria afficiuntur omnes quantum omnino 
possunt depugnant: at propter alieni cupiditatem non 
item ’; quod et Alexander Imperator ita expressit: ro pév 
apyev adinwv Joyav oUx ayv@pova éyer THY mpouAnoty, TO 68 
rovs oyhobvras anoostecOar &u te THS ayabAs ovvEednoems eye 
10 Gappadéor, xai éx Tod wn adinsiv aAN auvvacba trapyet 
ro eveAni, ‘elus a quo cCoepit iniuria, provocatio maxime 
invidiosa est; at cum depelluntur aggressores, sicut bona 
conscientia fiduciam secum fert, ita quia de vindicanda non 
de inferenda iniuria laboratur, spes etiam adsunt optimae ’. 

Si ita necesse est, perge gens mari invictissima, nec 
tuam tantum, sed humani generis libertatem audacter 
propugna. 

Nec te, quod classis centenis remigat alis, 
Terreat: INVITO labitur illa MARI: i 

Quodve vehunt prorae Centaurica saxa minantes, . 
Tigna cava et pictos experiere metus. 

Frangit et attollit vires in milite causa; 


Quae nisi tusta subest, excutit arma pudor.® 


*Polus Lucanus apud Stobaeum, De iustitia (III, p. 362 Wachsmut-Hense) ; 
Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromateis; Augustinus, De civitate Dei IV, 15. 

* Demosthenes, De libertate Rhodiorum XV, 10 (p. 193 R.). 

* Propertius IV, vi, 47-52. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 738 


the opinion of many philosophers and theologians’ differ 
more in name than in fact, and as peace is a harmonious 
agreement based not on individual whim, but on well 
ordered regulations. 

If however a truce is arranged for, it is quite clear from 
the very nature of a truce, that during its continuance no 
one’s condition ought to change for the worse, inasmuch as 
both parties stand on the equivalent of a uti possidetis. 

But if we are driven into war by the injustice of our 
enemies, the justice of our cause ought to bring hope and 
confidence in a happy outcome. “ For,” as Demosthenes 
has said, “every one fights his hardest to recover what he 
has lost; but when men endeavor to gain at the expense of 
others it is not so.’* .The Emperor Alexander has ex- 
pressed his idea in this way: ‘ Those who begin unjust deeds, 
must bear the greatest blame; but those who repel aggres- 
sors are twice armed, both with courage because of their 
just cause, and with the highest hope because they are not 
doing a wrong, but are warding off a wrong’. 

Therefore, if it be necessary, arise, O nation uncon- 
quered on the sea, and fight boldly, not only for your own lib- 
erty, but for that of the human race. “ Nor let it fright thee 
that their fleet is winged, each ship, with an hundred oars. 
The sea whereon it sails will have none of it. And though 
the prows bear figures threatening to cast rocks such as 
Centaurs throw, thou shalt find them but hollow planks 
and painted terrors. ’Tis his cause that makes or mars a 
soldier’s strength. If the cause be not just, shame strikes 
the weapon from his hands.” * 


1Polus Lucanus apud Stobaeum, De iustitia; Clemens Alexandrinus, Stro- 
mateis; Augustine, City of God IV, 15. 

* On the liberty of the Rhodians XV, 10 [Pickard-Cambridge’s translation I, 
page 59]. 

® Propertius IV, vi, 47-52 [Butler’s (Loeb) translation, page 305]. 


74 MARE LIBERVM 


Si iusta multi, et ipse Augustinus,* arma crediderunt eo 
nomine suscipi, quod per terras alienas iter innoxium ne- 
garetur, quanto illa erunt iustiora, quibus maris, quod 
naturae lege commune est, usus communis et innoxius postu- 
latur? Si iuste oppugnatae sunt gentes quae in suo solo 
commercia aliis interdicebant, quid illae quae populos ad se 
nihil pertinentes per vim distinent, ac mutuos earum com- 
meatus intercludunt? Si res ista in iudicio agitaretur, du- 
bitari non potest quae a viro bono expectari deberet sen- 
tentia, ait Praetor:’? ‘Quo minus illi in flumine publico 
navem agere, ratem agere, quove minus per ripam exonerare 
liceat, vim fieri veto’. De mari et litore in eandem formam 
dandum interdictum docent interpretes, exemplo Labeonis, 
qui cum interdiceret Praetor: * ‘ Ne quid in flumine publico 
ripave eius facias, quo statio iterve navigio deterius sit, fiat ’; 
simile dixit interdictum competere in mari:* ‘Ne quid in 
mari inve litore facias, quo portus, statio, iterve navigio 
deterius sit, fiat’. 

Immo et post prohibitionem, si quis scilicet in mari 
navigare prohibitus sit, aut non permissus rem suam ven- 
dere, aut re sua uti, iniuriarum eo nomine competere 
actionem Vlpianus respondit.° 'Theologi insuper et qui 
tractant casus, quos vocant, conscientiarum, concordes tra- 


1 De civitate Dei V, 1. 

2 Digest XLIII, 14, 1 (Ut in flumine publico navigare liceat). 

® Digest XLIII, 12, 1 (De fluminibus, L. 1, in principio). 

* Digest XLIII, 12, 1 (De fluminibus, L. 1, § Si in mari aliquid). 

* Digest XLIII, 8, 2 (Ne quid in loco publico, L. 2, § Si quis); XLVII, 10, 
13 et 24 (De iniuriis, L. Iniuriarum actio, et L. Si quis proprium); Silvestris, 
In verbo ‘ restitutio ’, 3 sub finem; Oldradus et Archidiaconus on Digest XLVIII, 
12, 2 (De lege Iulia de annona), and XLVII, 11, 6 (De extraordinariis criminibus. 
L. Annonam). 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 4 


If many writers, Augustine himself* among them, be- 
lieved it was right to take up arms because innocent pas- 
sage was refused across foreign territory, how much more 
justly will arms be taken up against those from whom the 
demand is made of the common and innocent use of the sea, 
which by the law of nature is common to all? If those 
nations which interdicted others from trade on their own 
soil are justly attacked, what of those nations which sep- 
arate by force and interrupt the mutual intercourse of peo- 
ples over whom they have no rights at all? If this case 
should be taken into court, there can be no doubt what 
opinion ought to be anticipated from a just judge. ‘The 
praetor’s law says: * ‘ I forbid force to be used in preventing 
any one from sailing a ‘ship or a boat on a public river, or 
from unloading his cargo on the bank’. The commentators 
say that the injunction must be applied in the same man- 
ner to the sea and to the seashore. Labeo, for example, in 
commenting on the praetor’s edict,* ‘ Let nothing be done in 
a public river or on its bank, by which a landing or a channel 
for shipping be obstructed ’, said there was a similar interdict 
which applied to the sea, namely,* ‘ Let nothing be done on 
the sea or on the seashore by which a harbor, a landing, or 
a channel for shipping be obstructed ’. 

Nay more, after such a prohibition, if, namely, a man be 
prevented from navigating the sea, or not allowed to sell or 
to make use of his own wares and products, Ulpian says 
that he can bring an action for damages on that ground.’ 
Also the theologians and the casuists agree that he who 
prevents another from buying or selling, or who puts his 

1 City of God V, 1. 

? Digest XLIII, 14, 1. 

* Digest XLIII, 12, 1. 

‘ Digest XLIII, 12, 1. 

5 Digest XLIII, 8, 2; XLVII, 10, 13 and 24; Silvestris, on the word ‘ re- 
stitutio’; Oldradus and Archidiaconus on Digest XLVIII, 12, 2, and XLVII, 11, 6 


[Oldrado de Ponte (?-1335), a Bologna canonist. Archidiaconus is probably the 
Italian decretalist Guido Bosius.] 


75 | MARE LIBERVM 


dunt, eum qui alterum vendere aut emere impediat, utilita- 
temve propriam publicae ac communi praeponat, aut ullo 
modo alterum in eo quod est iuris communis impediat, ad 
restitutionem teneri omnis damni viri boni arbitrio. 

Secundum haec igitur vir bonus iudicans, Batavis liber- 
tatem commerciorum adiudicaret, Lusitanos et ceteros, qui 
eam libertatem impediunt, vetaret vim facere, et damna 
restituere iuberet. Quod autem in iudicio obtineretur, id 
ubi iudicium haberi non potest, iusto bello vindicatur. 
-Augustinus: * ‘ Iniquitas partis adversae iusta ingerit bella ’. 
Et Cicero:* ‘Cum sint duo genera decertandi, unum per 
disceptationem, alterum per vim, confugiendum ad posterius, 
si uti non licet priore’. Et Rex Theodoricus: ‘ Veniendum 
tune ad arma, cum locum apud adversarium iustitia non 
potest reperire’. Et quod proprius est nostro argumento,’ 
Pomponius eum qui rem omnibus communem cum incom- 
modo ceterorum usurpet, MANV PROHIBENDVM 
respondit. ‘Theologi quoque tradunt, sicuti pro rerum 
cuiusque defensione bellum recte suscipitur, ita non minus 
recte suscipi, pro usu earum rerum quae naturali iure debent 
esse communes. Quare ei qui itinera praecludat, evection- 
emque mercium impediat, etiam non expectata ulla publica 
auctoritate, via facti, ut loquuntur, posse occurri. 

Quae cum ita sint, minime verendum est, ne aut Deus 


1 De civitate Dei IV. 

2 De officiis I, 34. 

* Digest XLI, 1, 50 (De adquirendo rerum dominio, L. Quamvis quod in 
litore) ; Henricus von Gorcum, De bello justo 9. 


a ge SS 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 75 


private interests before the public and common interests, 
or who in any way hinders another in the use of something 
which is his by common right, is held in damages to 
complete restitution in an amount fixed by an honorable 
arbitrator. 

Following these principles a good judge would award 
to the Dutch the freedom of trade, and would forbid the 
Portuguese and others from using force to hinder that free- 
dom, and would order the payment of just damages. But 
when a judgment which would be rendered in a court 
cannot be obtained, it should with justice be demanded in a 
war. Augustine* acknowledges this when he says: * The 
injustice of an adversary brings a just war’. Cicero 
also says:* “There are two ways of settling a dispute; 
first, by discussion; second, by physical force; we must 
resort to force only in case we may not avail ourselves 
of discussion.” And King Theodoric says: ‘ Recourse 
must then be had to arms when justice can find no lodg- 
ment in an adversary’s heart’. Pomponius, however, has 
handed down a decision which has more bearing on our argu- 
ment * than any of the citations already made. He declared 
that the man who seized a thing common to all to the 
prejudice of every one else must be forcibly prevented from 
so doing. ‘The theologians also say that just as war is 
righteously undertaken in defense of individual property, 
so no less righteously is it undertaken in behalf of the use 
of those things which by natural law ought to be common 
property. ‘Therefore he who closes up roads and hinders 
the export of merchandise ought to be prevented from so 
doing via facti, even without waiting for any public 
authority. 

Since these things are so, there need not be the slightest 


1City of God IV. 
2 De officiis I, 34 [Walter Miller’s (Loeb) translation, page 37]. 
* Digest XLI, 1, 50; Heinrich von Gorcum, De bello justo 9. 


76 MARE LIBERVM 


eorum conatus secundet, qui ab ipso institutum ius naturae 
certissimum violant, aut homines ipsi eos inultos patiantur, 
qui solo quaestus sui respectu communem humani generis - 
utilitatem oppugnant. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 76 


fear that God will prosper the efforts of those who violate 
that most stable law of nature which He himself has in- 
stituted, or that even men will allow those to go unpunished 
who for the sake alone of private gain oppose a common 
benefit of the human race. 


CvM svVB HOC TEMPYS PLYRIMAE Recis HiIsPANIARVM 
LITTERAE IN MANVS NOSTRAS VENISSENT, QVIBVS IPSIVS 
ET LYSITANORVM INSTITVIVM MANIFESTE DETEGITVR, 
OPERAE PRETIVM VISVM EST EX IIS, QVAE PLERAEQVE 
EODEM ERANT ARGVMENTO, BINAS IN LATINVM SER- 
MONEM TRANSLATAS EXHIBERE, 


Domine Martine Alphonse de Castro, Prorex amice, ego 
Rex multam tibi salutem mitto: 


Cum hisce litteris perveniet ad te exemplum typis im- 
pressum Edicti quod faciendum curavi, quo, ob rationes quas 
expressas videbis, aliasque meis rebus conducentes prohibeo 
commercium omne externorum in ipsis partibus Indiae 
aliisque regionibus transmarinis. Quandoquidem res haec 
est momenti atque usus maximi, et quae effici summa cum 
industria debeat, impero tibi, ut simulatque litteras has et 
edictum acceperis, publicationem eius omni diligentia pro- 
cures in omnibus locis ac partibus istius imperi, idque ipsum 
quod edicto continetur exsequaris sine ullius personae ex- 
ceptione, cuiuscumque qualitatis, aetatis, condicionisve sit, 
citra omnem moram atque excusationem, procedasque ad 
impletionem mandati via merae exsecutionis, nullo admisso 
impedimento, appellatione, aut gravamine in contrarium, 
cuiuscumque materiae generis aut qualitatis. Iubeo itaque 
hoc ipsum impleri per eos ministros ad quos exsecutio per- 
tinet, lisque significari, non modo eos qui contra fecerint 
malam operam mihi navaturos, sed eosdem me puniturum 
privatione officiorum in quibus mihi serviunt. 


Quia autem relatum est mihi commorari in istis partibus 
77 


APPENDIX 
Two letters of Philip III, King of Spain 


As several letters of the King of Spain have come of 
late into our hands, in which his design and that of the 
Portuguese is clearly disclosed, it seemed worth while to 
translate into Latin two of them which had particular bear- 
ing upon the controversy at issue, and to append them here. 


LETTER I 


To Don Martin Alfonso de Castro, our beloved viceroy, I, 
the King, send many greetings: 

Together with this letter will come to you a copy printed 
in type of an edict which I have taken much pains to draw 
up, by which, for reasons which you will see expressed, and 
for other reasons which are consonant with my interests, I 
prohibit all commerce of foreigners in India itself, and in 
all other regions across the seas. As this matter is of the 
greatest importance and serviceableness, and ought to be 
carried out with the highest zeal, I command you, as soon 
as you shall have received this letter and edict, to further 
with all diligence its publication in all places and districts 
under your jurisdiction, and to carry out the provisions of 
the edict without exception of any person whatsoever, no 
matter what his quality, age, or condition, and without delay 
and excuse, and to proceed to the fulfilment of this com- 
mand with the full power of your authority, no delay, 
appeal, or obstacle to the contrary, being admitted, of any 
kind, sort, or quality. 

Therefore I order that this duty be discharged by those 

77 


78 MARE LIBERVM 


externos multos variarum nationum, Italos, Gallos, Ger- 
manos, Belgas, quorum pars maior, quantum intelligimus, 
eo venit per Persida et Turcarum imperium, non per hoc 
regnum, adversus quos si ex huius Edicti praescripto ac 
rigore procedatur, posse inde nonnullas difficultates sequi, 
si illi ad Mauros inimicos perfugiant, vicinisque munitionum 
mearum dispositionem indicent, rationesque monstrent quae 
rebus meis nocere possent, exsequi te hoc edictum volo prout 
res et tempus ferent, atque ea uti prudentia, qua illae diffi- 
cultates evitentur, curando ut omnes externos in potestate 
tua habeas eosque custodias pro culusque qualitate, ita ut 
adversus imperium nostrum nihil valeant attentare, utque 
ergo omnino eum finem consequar quem hoc Edicto mihi 
proposul, 

Scriptae Vlyssipone XXVIII Novembris, Anno 
MDCVI. Subsignatum erat Rex. Inscriptio. Pro Rege. 
Ad Dominum Martinum Alfonsum de Castro Consiliar1um 
suum, et suum Proregem Indiae. 


Prorex amice Rex multam salutem tibi mitto: 


Etsi pro certo habeo tua praesentia, iisque viribus cum 
quibus in partes austrinas concessisti, perduelles Hollandos, 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 78 


officers to whom its execution belongs, and that they be in- 
formed that not only will those who disobey serve me ill, 
but that I will punish them by depriving them of the offices 
in which they now serve me. 

Further, inasmuch as it has been reported to me that 
within your jurisdiction there are sojourning many for- 
eigners of different nations, Italians, French, Germans, and. 
men of the Low Countries, the larger part of whom as we 
know came there by way of Persia and Turkey, and not 
through our realm; and inasmuch as, if this edict be rigidly 
enforced against those persons to the letter, some incon- 
veniences might follow, if they should escape to the Moors, 
our enemies, and make known to our neighbors the dis- 
position of my forces, and thus show ways that they might 
be able to harm my dominion: Therefore, I wish you to 
carry out the provisions of this edict as the exigencies of 
circumstances and occasion demand, and to use all pru- 
dence necessary in order to avoid those difficulties, taking 
especial pains to keep all foreigners in your power, and to 
guard them in accordance with their individual rank, so that 
they may have no opportunity to attempt anything preju- 
dicial to our power, that thus I may attain fully that end 
which I have set forth in this edict. | 

Given at Lisbon, on the 28th of November in the year 
of our Lord, 1606. Signed by the king, and addressed: For 
the king, to Don Martin Alfonso de Castro, his Councillor, 
and Viceroy for the East Indies. 


LETTER II 


To our beloved viceroy, I, the King send many greetings: 


Although I consider it absolutely certain that your pres- 
ence and the forces which you took with you into those 
Eastern regions, guarantee that our enemies, the Dutch, 


79 MARE LIBERVM 


qui illic haerent, nec minus indigenas qui eis receptum prae- 
bent, ita castigatos fore, ut nec hi, nec illi tale quicquam in 
posterum audeant; expediet tamen, ad res tuendas, ut iustam 
classem, elque oper idoneam, cum tu Goam redibis, in istis 
Maris partibus relinquas, eiusque imperium et summam 
praefecturam mandes Andreae Hurtado Mendosae, aut si 
quem ei muneri aptiorem iudicabis, quemadmodum pro tuo 
in me affectu confido, ea in re non aliud te respecturum 
quam quod rebus meis erit utilisstmum. 

Scriptae Madritii X XVII Ian. MDCVII. Signatum 
Rex. Inscriptio. Pro Rege. Ad Dominum Martinum AlI- 
fonsum de Castro suum Consiliarium, et suum Proregem 
Indiae. 


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS_ 79 


who infest those quarters as well as the natives who give 
them a welcome reception, will be so thoroughly punished 
that neither the one nor the other will ever dare such prac- 
tices in the future: still it will be expedient for the protec- 
tion of our interests, that, when you shall return to Goa, 
you leave in those parts of the sea a fleet large and capable 
enough to do the business, and also that you delegate the 
supreme command of that fleet to Andrea Hurtado de 
Mendoza, or to any one else whom you shall consider better 
fitted for this post. I rely upon your affection for me, 
knowing that in this matter you will do nothing but what 
will be most useful to my interests. 

Given at Madrid the 27th day of January in the year 
of our Lord 1607. Signed by the king, and addressed: For 
the king, to Don Martin Alfonso de Castro, his Councillor, 
and Viceroy for the East Indies. 





INDEX 


References are to pages of text and translation alike. 


Accursius, biographical note, 51, n. 7; 
cited, 51. 

Agamemnon, mention of, 9. 

Agreements, when not binding, 35. 

Air, common to all, 28; nature of, 39. 

Alciatus, A., biographical note, 10 n. 2. 

Alexander, Emperor, quoted, 73. 

Alexander the Great, mention of, 14, 
40. 

Alexander VI, Pope, reference to, 15, 
45. 

Alexandria, mention of, 68. 

Ambrose, St., biographical note, 33 n. 
5; cited, 52, 71; quoted, 32. 

Amorites, mention of, 9. 

Andocides, cited, 72 n. 1. 

Angelus Aretinus, biographical note, 
48 n. 2; reference to, 48, 49, 50, 52, 55. 

Apollinaris, mention of, 32. 

Aquinas, Thos., biographical note, 15 
n. 4; mention of, 13, 19. 

Arabians, mention of, 40, 68. 

Arbitration, 6. 

Archidiaconus, cited, 74 n. 5. 

Aristotle, cited, 61, 63, 71; quoted, 63. 

Art of exchange, definition of, 61. 

Athenaeus, reference to, 29. 

Athenians, mention of, 9. 

Augustine, St. cited, 71, 74; quoted, 
75; reference to, 9. 

Augustus, mention of, 12, 41. 

Avienus, quoted, 23, 24. 

Ayala, reference to, 16 n. 5, 

Aztecs, mention of, 9. 


Balbus, J. F., biographical note, 49 n. 
3; cited, 49; mention of, 55. 

Baldis de Ubaldis, biographical note, 
9 n. 7; mention of, 9, 55. 

Bartolus, biographical note, 48 n. *; 
cited, 48; reference from, 19 n. 2. 
Bennett, C. E., translation from, 31. 
Bernhardus, St., reference from, 16 

nL S. 
Boéthius, quoted, 19. 
du Bois, see Silvius. 
Bolognese, mention of, 9. 
Butler, translation from, 73. 


Cadiz, mention of, 40. 

Caelius Antipater, cited, 40. 

Caietanus, T. (Cajetan), biographical 
note, 19 n. 4; reference to, 17, 19. 


§1 


aa of Good Hope, mention of, 40, 


Gaatrovists A. de, biographical note, 53 
n. 1; cited, 53. 

Castrensis, P. de (de Castro), bio- 
graphical note, 49 n. *; reference 
from, 22 n. 1. 

Castro, M. C. de, letters to, 77. 

Celsus, CECI ESTO SLD 84, 

Ceylon, mention of," il, 12, 

Charles V, Emperor, reference to, 21. 

Chinese, mention of, 62, 68. 

Cicero, ‘cited, 72; quoted, 23, 25, 27, 28, 
753 reference to, 29, 

Cinus, cited, |63 n. (1. 

Claudius, Emperor, mention of, 41. 

Clemens Alexandrinus, cited, 73 oe 

Coercion, Portuguese, in case of East 
Indies, 68. 

Columella, reference to, 32. 

Comines, P. de, biographical note, 28 
n. 3. 

Commerce, origin of, 62. 

Common ownership, definition of, 23. 

Common right, 44, 

Community of use, annihilation of, 62. 

Connanus, F. de, biographical note, 
12.'n.% 2. 

Conscience, 3, 

Contract, nature of, 35. 

Cornelius Nepos, cited, 40. 

Council of Spain, mention of, 20. 

Council of Toledo, mention of, 19. 

Covarruvias, D., biographical note, 9 
ih, 3. 

Crown properties, in sea and river, 36. 

Custom, established by privilege, 52. 


Demosthenes, cited, 72; quoted, 73. 

Divine law, 1. 

Donation of Pope Alexander VI, ref- 
erence to, 15, 18, 45, 66. 

Donellus, H. (Doneau), biographical 
note, 12 n. 2. 

Dryden, J., translations from, 7, 8, 26. 

Duarenus, biographical note, 27 n. 4. 

Dutch, answer to Portuguese, 71; East 
India trade to be maintained by, 72; 
navigation by, 59; reasonable claims 
of, 70. 


East Indies, mention of, 65; not chat- 
tels of Portuguese, 21, 60, 68; Portu- 


82 INDEX 


guese claim of exclusive right to 
trade in, 61; Portuguese not first in, 
41; right of trade to be kept with, 
72; way is free to, 37, 

Emmanuel, King of Portugal, mention 
of, 59. 

English, mention of, 43. 

Ennius, quoted, 38. 

Equity, chapter on, 69. 

Estius, biographical note, 9 n. 5. 

Exchange, art of, defined, 61; deriva- 
tion of, 62, 

Exhaustion, question of, 57. 

Expediency, 1. 


Faber, J., biographical note, 34 n. 2; 
reference to, 34, 55. 

Fachinham, N., biographical note, 50 
1 Mepis 

Felinus, M. S., biographical note, 49 
n. 2; cited, 49. 

Fishing, an ancient national right, 56; 
free to all, 32, 38; not legal to pre- 
vent, 33, 51; revenues from, 36; a 
servitude, 34. 

Fleets, maintenance of, 365. 

Free navigation, chapter on, 7. 

Freedom of trade, basis of, 63; chap- 
ter on, 61; Dutch should have, 75. 

French, mention of, 43; navigation by, 


Gaius Caesar, mention of, 40. 

Genoese, mention of, 48, 53, 54, 56, 58. 

Gentilis, A., biographical note, 8 n. 2. 

Goa, mention of, 79. 

Gorcum, H. v., cited, 75 n. 3. 

Gordianus, Fab. Claud., biographical 
note, 12 n. 1; mention of, 12. 

Grandpont, A. G. de., xi. 

Greeks, reference to, 19 

Gregory, mention of, 19. 

Gregory of Nazianzus, cited, 71. 

Guicciardini, cited, 68 n. 2. 


Hanno, reference to, 40. 

Harris, E. I., translations from, 24, 25. 
Hercules, mention of, 9. 
Hermogenianus, quoted, 26. 

Hesiod, quoted, 70; reference to, 22. 
Homer, cited, 62. 

Horace, quoted, 12, 23, 31. 

Hugo, reference from, 16 n. 3. 
Hunting, an ancient national right, 56. 


India, mention of, 12. 

Inner sea, as distinguished from outer 
sea, 37. 

Innocentius, reference from, 19 n. 2. 

Innocent passage, 20, 43, 74. 

International rights, 31. 

Isernia, A., biographical note, 36 n. *. 


Isocrates, cited, 72 n. 1, 2. 
Israelites, mention of, 9. 


James, H. R., translation from, 19. 

Jason, cited, 54 n. 1. 

Java, mention of, 11. 

John, King of Portugal, mention of, 
59. 


Jowett, B., translation from, 63. 
Jurisdiction, distinguished from owner- 
ship, 35. 


Labeo, quoted, 31, 74. 

Law of Human Society, 9. 

Law of Nations, 7, 9, 28, 31, 61, 63; 
right conception of, 52. 

Law of Nature, 2, 5, 23; right con- 
ception of, 52. 

Law of property, 25. 

Legitimate rulers, 19. 

Leo, Emperor, cited, 33. 

Lucullus, mention of, 32. 


Mair, A. W., translation from, 70. 

Malacca, mention of, 59. 

Marcianus, cited, 32, 48, 49; reference 
£0 oro: 

Martial, quoted, 32. 

Martin, J. C., xii. 

Megarians, mention of, 8. 

Mendoza, A. H. de, mention of, 79. 

Miller, W., translations from, b7, 38, 
75. 

Milton, quoted, 11 n. *. 

Moluccas, mention of, 11. 

Monopoly, question of, 71. 

Morocco, mention of, 40. 


Natural Law, 2, 5, 23, 53. 

Navigation, Dutch, 59; free to all, 7, 
32, 38, 44, 46, 55, 56; Portuguese, 59; 
prescriptive right claimed by Portu- 
guese, 54, 60; protection of, 35. 

Nazianzenus, see Gregory of Nazianzus. 

Neratius, reference to, 28. 

Nonius Marcellus, quoted, 12 n. 2. 


Occupation, definition of, 25, 39, 48; 
mention of, 27, 34; not to affect 
common use, 30. 

Oldradus (Oldrado de Ponte), bio- 
graphical note, 74 n. 5. 

Osorius, H., biographical note, 59 n. 1. 

Outer sea, as distinguished from inner 
sea, 37. 

Ovid, quoted, 26, 28. 

Ownership, common, 26; private, 29, 
33, 62; transition to, 24. 


Panormitanus, cited, 67 n. 2. 
Papal Donation, chapters on, 15, 45, 66. 
Papinian, cited, 60; quoted, 48. 


INDEX 83 


Paul III, Pope, reference to, 21. 

Paulus, cited, 32, 51. 

Personal right, 35. 

Peter, St., mention of, 16. ; 

Philip III of Spain, letters of, 77. 

Pickard-Cambridge, translation from, 
73. 

Pirates, treatment of, 35. 

Placentinus, quoted, 34. 

Plato, cited, 63. 

Plautus, quoted, 29. 

Pliny, cited, 12, 32, 40, 41, 62; quoted, 7. 

Plutarch, reference to, 14. 

Polus Lucanus, cited, 73 n. 1. 

Pomponius, cited, 30, 75. 

Pomponius Mela, quoted, 40 n. I. 

Pope, The, no right in temporal mat- 
ters, 45; no authority against law of 
nature and of nations, 66. 

Portuguese, arrogant pretensions of, 
39, 40, 43, 75; claim of exclusive 
right to trade, 61; claim: to ocean, 
37; desire for profits, 42, 69, 71; 
mention of, 56, 65; not first in East 
Indies, 41. 

Prescription, acquisition by, 49, 59; 
chapters on, 47, 67; definition of, 
47; failure of, 50, 51; immemorial 
time no help to, 49, 58; reference 
to, 4, 52. 

Pretexts for war, 18. 

Private possessions, reference to, 28. 

Privative right, 23. 

Propertius, quoted, 73. 

Property, origin of, 27. 

Ptolemaeus, cited, 41. 

Public opinion, 3. 

Public territory, origin of, 34. 


Quintilian, quoted, 25. 


Revenues, on fisheries, 36. 

Right of innocent passage, 20, 43, 74. 

Right of navigation, not Portuguese be- 
cause of Papal Donation, 45. 

Rivalry, comment on, 70. 

Roman Church, mention of, 19. 


Sandeus, see Felinus. 

Saracens, reference to, 10, 17. 

Scaevola, mention of, 30. 

Scott, J. B., Introductory note by, v 

Sea, The, common to all, 28, 30, 34, 37, 
43, 44, 52, 55; defined by law of 
nations, 22; nature of, 31, 39; not 
exhausted by use, 43, 57; not mer- 
chandise, 34; not Portuguese by 
Papal Donation, 45; not subject to 
servitude, 35, 36; sovereignty of, 53. 

Seashore, common to all, 28, 30; how 
to be used, 30, 34; right of Roman 
people to, 31. 


Seneca, cited, 63; quoted, 8, 24, 25, 
Q7 


tal 

Shahan, Bishop, xii. 

Sigonius, C., biographical note, 9 n. 2. 

Silvestris, cited, 46 n. 1. 

Silvius, F., biographical note, IT) m7 13 
reference from, 17, 

Smith, K. F., xi: 

Sovereignty, grant by reason of, 17; 
matter of positive law, 20; Papal 
Donation gives no right to, chapter 
on, 15; a particular proprietorship, 
22, 24; by right of conquest, 18; by 
right of discovery, 11; title to, 11; 
universal, 24. 

Spaniards, arrogance of, 70, 71; claim 
to ocean, 37, 54; mention of, 56. 

Strabo, quoted, 41. 

Sylvius, see Silvius. 


Tacitus, quoted, 10. 

Temporal possessions, 19. 

Theodoric, King, quoted, 75. 

Thucydides, cited, 72 n. 1; quoted, 27. 

Title by prescription, destroyed, 50. 

Tolls, 11, 36. 

Torquemada, see Turre Cremata. 

Trade, freedom of, 61, 63, 72; origin 
of, 62; Portuguese claim to right of, 
61. 

Trajan, mention of, 41. 

Turre Cremata, reference from, 16 n. 3. 


Ulpian, cited, 31, 33, 35, 44, 41, 
63, 74; reference to, 28, 69. 

Use, definition of, 24, 27; sea not ex- 
hausted by, 43; things susceptible to 
universal, 29. 

Usurpation, definition of, 52; Portu- 
guese worthless, 68. 

Uti possidetis, 32, 73. 


Varro, reference to, 32. 

Vasquius, F. M. (Vasquez), biographi- 
cal note, 52 n. 4; cited, 53, 67, 68; 
quoted, 52, 55, 56, 58, 70. 

Venetians, mention of, 9, 43, 48, ‘53, 
54, 56, 58. 

Vergil quoted, 7, 8, 26; reference to, 


Wctoris F, da He aR note, 9 
n, 3; reference to, 9, 13, 17, 18. 


War, pretexts for, 18, 20. 

Water, common to all, 28, ; 

West Indies, claimed by Portuguese, 
54. 

Willoughby, W. W., xii. 

World monopoly, question of, 71. 


Zuarius, R., biographical note, 44 n. 3. 


(| 
| ke 
i Ne ENY 
5 
Nee 
. i ae 
4 ; 
tex tot ( 
, #4 ate 
F 
1 
' 
i 
i 
544 
‘| 
, a aN 



















y } a 
Lao 7 
' 
d 1 
a ¢ Tal | ’ 
i@ , & § 4 
Ail i] ay 
1 
i] ~ 
| 
' 
4 a4 
' 
7 
1 
9 
v 
’ 
4 
hoy 
4 
om . 
“> 
. 
, 
4 
te 
' 
- 
’ 
, 
: 
' 
a : 
i « 
_ 
i 
i 1 
© ' 
} 
’ 
| 
f 
\ 
r 
( 


i‘ Hiv vi} a 





* 


aie, hi 1 ; 


a 


ae.) ie ie } 

i ead dan ie 
™ Bi bj 
as 


Me cet) Che 





a 


Mis 








o4% a = 


TY OF ILLINOIS-URBA 


Tia hey a 








Ages 
/ ' 
saath 5 ; ar 7 8 : 99 , 
Yow Me ! be os etgt ‘ Us | ‘ ae) 4 > He tey MO pal? Lae: ‘ 
ta ee ? * : ‘ ai . a : Stee eo toe fl ahs eile Lats ; or Rais Wace : zk eM . 
oe gebets r : : 
F ioe 
‘ 
ehehs ‘ 
ent Ads t S by A ‘ $ : , Seely 
beta, & prety’ 2 : ‘ ‘ <i, cities ‘ 3 % Ag j ‘ , Ashe ‘ ‘ 
oe ua te hs re rade 4 c - i , 
H ‘ 
1 
4 ‘ \ 
aay ENE A DeTSMk 4 as i ‘ ah an ; wi ; : 
4 MAIN fate the 3 ¢ 4 ¢ 
edgy te, by, Aes \ ‘ : , ; 4 
v hang hip katie Varoe y . ree aes | é eran i ’ yun - } ha ; 
Sone qrced Ire ‘ 4 i : % E i: ; J \ 
ia wie 
Ale ‘ ; ec 
rath ys 1 a4 
Ne Dae yn ix J 
hag ALON ' . 
Yar 
4 1 
‘ Or 
a 
’ ‘ My * 
= 5 { 
eaten Ora 
yet i : Fc 8 1 , Re ele! re: te ‘5 ay, Shue ‘ : i ? : Is : 
1 
este teh ted Mayet Ae ' Pepe ; toys. ; ae : peers Lo ohapteqates ray , ak , , rake hat sis , é 
ate gh \ : } s: i 5 : ges i ‘ 5 Ms f t : : : a eta 7 
eae 
aarhy ted phe Pod at 4 u 4 j 
Bar tasty Bards Fi eth A vf } t a hte “ : We $ F cs 3 ae y Cartons ae 
‘ ad 
\ ; aed 
Nar i Agta gig? ae . : : 5 2 3 : eae ‘ 
at 0 ue , 
4 ¢ 
ae ali 
sf sats 
sp eit Re gli trtee ha Labo 2, ig neue NLM TM iaigr ht es fed ey Re ‘ Buti! ? : . 
} 1 
, 5 ‘ F 
we pea” ; ‘i 
ud aks 
Liege ks ‘ F ‘ : 
seit t F { = = ve 4 : ae oA oh Pi i i i \ z ae ‘ kL “iene st 25 9 : ; 4 
rook f ¥ 2 bY 3 i ‘ fo bare 4 as , brs ‘ 3 4 
' 
Phe peers 
! Cher pie id 
ve Ut 
Suh ass ‘ 
eee Hey 
vi gibane atop geap Spot att / i Jacbed eis? ! itis : ; [ses ’ o My > ; Bylot fas ga0 : 
eNO Ley 
WYSE 
‘ y, js “aint PR RIAD Sakae | i 
ays fi Fi ¢ ey Sait taste hid : 


on Aa 
tam PIT AD j ? : tes A ; ss 3 : ‘ ‘ 
aed Chas Tepes yaa HES HEN fe EE Da nf aif go a7 hated Sy Eats pane Ee Gah oN } , 


re aie taut ; F i 
cle 
ep Pa ptea pe VS a Sele 55 EM : i Aa pe ~ rel] ae ae 2 : - vf Aah 
an pepe eae a : ie : i fi eaetaty A) of hy a rid aie rey ts “ npg tens ET ys ict ; ‘ i iy 
bie ies Rod ORG ; Lp ee ; Gait aed vi “ag 4 we ‘ ‘ 4 5 i eres 4 : shee ; Reg ‘ mpd ‘4 o} f 
AB lal caitep the py Sf ‘ ’ r ERGs : ae aye? : [ ; 3 : ; 
Tig stad ee hgh ¥ ‘ Sat ‘ 4 ‘ tee Mt ye ; ge eh Pay , 1 ; Za : : 
. TA AE, GOO ‘ > ! Fi a Dee i id ‘ ‘ ' : E 


ae Panted Ha oe te: ete Fa vcPKE / te : aye ; P * ‘ . F 
I oh id fdie'y CNET, hq Aas Laney D FFG O og TO? CF dire wih 4 jay é 5 ; erie : r iL 





